Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Substandard Housing

Mr. David Steel: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the progress of rehabilitation of substandard housing in Scotland.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Hugh D. Brown): The Housing (Scotland) Act 1974, which came into operation on 27th November 1974, gave local authorities new and extended powers to deal with houses below the statutory tolerable standard by declaring housing action areas, and local authorities have been given every encouragement to make use of these powers. Since the Act came into force, 68 housing action areas have been declared, covering 4,927 houses, of which 2,855 are to be improved. Also, many of the houses improved with the aid of grants will have previously been below standard.

Mr. Steel: Does the hon. Gentleman think the programme is going as fast as it should? Does he still have a target date for ridding Scotland of the rest of the houses which are below a tolerable standard? Is it possible to speed up the valuation process, which seems to be causing delays in some areas?

Mr. Brown: I know the hon. Gentleman has had problems—not leadership problems, but difficulties in his constituency about valuations. If we can help, I shall be willing to look at the matter. We have no specific target date, because most of the responsiblity rests with local authorities, but we have provided a framework of legislation and the financial resources to make a serious attack on the

problem. This is the first year of existence of the new housing authorities and, although I am not complacent, I am satisfied that they are beginning to realise the benefits of the housing action area procedure.

Mr. Adam Hunter: Does my hon. Friend realise that the problem of substandard housing is not experienced only by local authorities? Is he aware that in the village of Steelend in my area many National Coal Board houses are in a very bad condition? Does he agree that, if the NCB cannot find the money to improve them, an extra Government grant should be given to the local district council to enable it to carry out the necessary work?

Mr. Brown: I would not necessarily agree with my hon. Friend. There are generous funds available for local authorities for public sector housing. About 7 per cent. or 8 per cent. of the total housing stock is below a tolerable standard. The NCB is in the same position as any private sector landlord and has access to improvement grants.

Mr.Younger: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the present figures for house improvements show a shattering reduction on the huge totals achieved by the last Conservative Government? Will he give expenditure on this work a much higher priority, as an improved house produces an excellent home at much less cost than a new house?

Mr. Brown: I do not accept what the hon. Member says. We have rightly given grants more selectively and concentrated on making more money available for houses below a tolerable standard and for people whose homes really need the improvements.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: Has my hon. Friend seen the memorandum submitted to his office by the residents of Downfield Place in my constituency which shows that Edinburgh District Council is failing to carry out the instruction in Circular 67 to inform residents of a housing action area exactly what an order means? Will he consider what pressure can be put on local authorities failing to carry out this task, which is so vital if the 1974 Act is to work as intended?

Mr. Brown: I am not aware of the circumstances in Downfield Place. I am


sure that this is an important matter, and if my hon. Friend writes to me I shall take it up to find out whether the Edinburgh District Council is in default. I know it is not exactly setting the heather on fire in other aspects of housing policy.

Mr. Welsh: What effect will the proposed cuts of £94 million in Government expenditure over the next four years have if £6 out of every £10 for the Scottish budget is to be taken from housing? Surely this must have a devastating effect on house-building rates and rehabilitation rates.

Mr. Brown: I am never very sure that the hon. Gentleman's figures are correct. I should like to see them in writing and study them first. I repeat that there is no restriction on the available resources for new housing. We are giving resources for modernisation and improvement at a record level. I do not think that this is an unsatisfactory performance by any standard.

Mr. Craigen: In view of my hon. Friend's recent letter to me about improvement schemes, will he say whether he has had a favourable response from the Scottish Special Housing Association as to how far it might assist local authorities in this matter?

Mr. Brown: Yes, I have had frequent discussions with the SSHA. It is directing its resources to this very problem. I should add that the housing associations are making an increased contribution. Over the next five years they expect to rehabilitate 3,200 houses each year. Although I am not satisfied, I think that we should get some recognition for our effort.

Home Help Service

Mr. Teddy Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the home help service.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Frank McElhone): The rate support grant settlement for 1976–77 allowed for a 3 per cent. increase in expenditure on social work services. This is sufficient to maintain existing services, including the home help service, but decisions on levels of services are for local authorities themselves in the light of their assessments of needs and priorities.

Mr. Taylor: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in many local authority areas the numbers of home helps are being reduced because of a policy of no additional recruitment? Is he not ashamed to be a member of a Government who are spending £4,000 million on nationalisation but who are responsible for a reduction in essential services for the elderly? Will he at least be prepared to initiate an inquiry into what is happening in the Strathclyde Region, where elderly and disabled people are not getting the home helps they need?

Mr. McElhone: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has got it slightly wrong again. The House will know that he and I represent Glasgow seats. Since the hon. Gentleman tabled his Question I have made some checks with my officials on local authority home help services in Glasgow. The fact is that the great majority of clients are getting a home help on five or more days a week. In addition, in the Glasgow district there has been an increase in the number of clients receiving the service despite a reduction in the number of home helps. Our information suggests that the service is being more effectively deployed.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Is not my hon. Friend getting somewhat fed up with the sickening hypocrisy of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor), who comes to the Dispatch Box with synthetic compassion for whichever interest group he has a Question about on any particular day, yet who is constantly demanding, like his leader, even more drastic cuts in public expenditure?

Mr. McElhone: I am already on record as saying that the Conservative Party in Scotland is the falling dinosaur of the Scottish political world. It must come clean with the electorate. It cannot continually ask for cuts in public expenditure in the House and at the same time betray a social conscience for cheap electoral gains.

Mr. Monro: In terms of expenditure on social work and the health services, how can the Minister give up the income from pay beds yet deny home helps to elderly geriatrics?

Mr. McElhone: Surely that is the weakest case so far for increasing home help provision.

Mrs. Bain: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that many district nurses are deeply concerned that the home help service is not adequate? Does he accept that they are having to take over the service's function? Is he entirely satisfied with the situation in Strathclyde?

Mr. McElhone: No one denies—I have never denied this myself—that there are constraints on public expenditure. However, in the Glasgow district, an area which we have checked because it is represented in part by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor), there is a better service because of rationalisation. I adopt the same attitude towards the SNP as I adopt towards the Conservative Party in Scotland as the SNP does not have a social services policy. At the same time as it is thinking of creating an army of 80,000, perhaps in its policy statements it might think of setting out a policy for better social services.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: In view of the totally unsatisfactory and complacent nature of the Minister's reply, I beg to ask leave to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Devolution

Mr. Peter Morrison: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the present estimates of the cost of servicing the proposed Assembly in Scotland.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Harry Ewing): I have nothing further to add at this stage to the proposals outlined in Part VI of last November's White Paper on devolution and to the statement made in the House on 14th April by my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council.

Mr. Morrison: Do the proposals outlined in the White Paper include the salaries of all the extra civil servants who will be needed for the Assembly? Will it be only the Scottish taxpayer who will pay the cost?

Mr. Ewing: The proposals in the White Paper took account of the salaries of the additional members of staff who would be required to service the Scottish Assembly, and beyond that I do not want to go at this sage.

Mr. Henderson: Does the Minister agree that it would reduce the cost if the

money from English companies which is going behind the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) and his friends to thwart the will of the Scottish people were devoted to improving the benefits for the Scottish people?

Mr. Ewing: It is a new experience tot me to be asked to referee a fight between the SNP and the Tories: I usually promote such fights. However, I have never noticed any reluctance on the part of the SNP to accept the aid that is given to opposition parties, aid which I imagine contains some element of English money. The House will bear in mind that at a recent selection conference at Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles the short list was made up of someone from the Caribbean and someone from London. The hon. Gentleman ought not to put such questions to me.

Mr. Sillars: Does my hon. Friend find it remarkable that questions of this nature were never raised when the United Kingdom was to enter the Common Market? Will my hon. Friend seek out and publish the amount of money involved for the British taxpayer in servicing Strasbourg and Brussels salaries, and so on, and point out that it will probably cost a great deal less to service democracy in Scotland than bureaucracy in the Common Market?

Mr. Ewing: It is fair to say that my hon. Friend paints with a rather broad brush. My attitude to the cost of the Scottish Assembly is that democracy cannot be too expensive. The working class of this country has had experience of democracy being expensive before, when it was not represented because of the cost. No one can argue—certainly it cannot be argued from the Government Benches—that democracy can be too expensive. We justify the cost of the Assembly on that basis.

Mr. Rilkind: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that of the extra 1,000 civil servants who will be required for devolution, according to the White Paper, only 200 will be needed to service the Assembly? If 800 will be required because of the Government's insistence that there should be an Executive superimposed on the Assembly, will the Government take that into account in considering the changes that are to be made from the White Paper?

Mr. Ewing: I notice that at each succesive Question Time the hon. Gentleman slips that much further on the subject of devolution. I am beginning to wonder where he stands between his hon. Friends the Members for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) and Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat).

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I cannot call anyone else on this Question. It is 10 minutes to three and we are only on Question No. 3.

Scottish Trades Union Congress

Mr. Morro: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his meeting with the Scottish Trades Union Congress on 23rd April.

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make a statement on his meeting with the Scottish TUC at its conference at Perth.

Mr. Younger: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his meeting with the Scottish Trades Union Congress on 23rd April.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Millan): My speech to the Scottish Trades Union Congress on 23rd April has already been given wide publicity. I shall be meeting the General Council again on 28th May to discuss matters affecting the Scottish economy.

Mr. Monro: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that he spoke optimistically about employment? Is he aware that his Government have now been in office for over two years and that, despite the promises that his leader gave in October 1974, unemployment is now 50 per cent. higher? Is he not thoroughly ashamed of his record?

Mr. Millan: Not at all. I am optimistic about employment in Scotland. Unemployment in Scotland in relation to the rest of the United Kingdom is better than it has ever been. That is to the credit of the present Government.

Mr. Canavan: Is it not obvious that there is a great deal of agreement between the Labour Party and the STUC about devolution and other issues? Is it all that surprising that the Labour Party is the only organisation which has this

special understanding with the STUC, as the Tories cannot make up their minds about devolution and Scottish nationalists cannot make up their minds about whether they are Socialists?

Mr. Milan: I agree completely with my hon. Friend. There is a very warm and friendly understanding between the Government and the STUC, and I hope that it will continue.

Mr. Younger: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that in his speech to the STUC, speaking as Secretary of State. he made the startling admission that both he and the Government were prepared to take no responsibility for the present levels of unemployment? How does that tie in with the fact that defence cuts under this Government are throwing hundreds of people in my constituency out of work and that other cuts which the Government are being forced to make because of their economic policy are putting thousands of others out of work every month in Scotland? The Government should be ashamed of themselves

Mr. Milan: I did not say to the STUC that the Government took no responsibility for unemployment. That would be an absurd thing to say.

Mr. Younger: The right hon. Gentle man said that.

Mr. Millan: The hon. Gentleman must bear with me. I think that I am rather better informed of what I said at Perth than the hon. Gentleman is. I did not make any such statement. Of course we take responsibility for the general economic situation.

Mr. Younger: And unemployment?

Mr. Milan: And unemployment, of course. Concerning the defence budget, I notice that the hon. Gentleman has joined his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Carthcart (Mr. Taylor) in calling for more Government expenditure.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Did my right hon Friend have any discussions with the STUC about Chrysler? Did the STUC make any comment on the fact that those who are always shouting "Put Scotland first" refuse to buy cars made in Scotland?

Mr. Millan: There was no specific comment. I did not get the impression that the STUC took the SNP at all seriously. Indeed, the SNP was not mentioned in my company.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: As the right hon. Gentleman has again said that he is optimistic about the future at a time when the seasonally-adjusted figures show that 100 Scots are losing their jobs every working day, will he give an indication of when he thinks that, because of the Government's policies, unemployment in Scotland will begin to go down?

Mr. Millan: I hope that we shall very soon begin to see the turn-round in unemployment. It will be brought that much nearer if we get full support for the Government's budgetary and pay policies. I am disappointed that the Opposition, in their hypocritical way, cannot bring themselves to support the Government's efforts.

Mr. Crawford: Does the Secretary of State agree with the STUC that the Scottish Assembly should have control over the Scottish Development Agency and Scottish universities? May we have a categorical reply on that matter?

Mr. Millan: At Perth I said that I thought that the STUC's document on the Government's White Paper was very interesting and that its ideas were being carefully considered.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. For the rest of Question Time I shall call fewer supplementary questions.

Mr. Younger: In view of the totally unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to ask leave to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Fishing Industry

Mr. Sproat: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to meet representatives of the fishing industry.

Mr. Millan: I have already met representatives of the distant-water sector to discuss the situation at Iceland. I intend to meet representatives of both the inshore and the distant-water sectors, principally

about the common fisheries policy and the economic situation, in the course of the next few weeks.

Mr. Sproat: I welcome the meeting that the right hon. Gentleman has arranged. Will he tell us in advance why no statement has been made to the House of Commons about the ending of the last session of the important Law of the Sea Conference? Does he agree that throwing away in advance our card of a 100-mile exclusive limit was incredible diplomatic stupidity and that variable limits will be totally unworkable?

Mr. Millan: I disagree completely with the hon. Gentleman. We have taken a realistic view of the situation. Our position could have been that much easier had the previous Conservative Government not thrown all their cards away before we got into the Common Market.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend recall that in all the discussions with the various sections of the fishing industry the one matter on which they were agreed concerning limits, if nothing else, was that variable limits were difficult to police? Will he assure us that something will be done to try to retrieve that position?

Mr. Millan: Any limit is difficult to police. My hon. Friend will know that, apart from that question, enforcement and other matters are now being discussed in the Common Market context.

Mr. Henderson: Does the Secretary of State accept that there is cross-party agreement on the need to obtain a better deal on limits for our fishermen? Does he also accept that my hon. Friends and I, and no doubt other Members in other parts of the House, are willing to join an all-party delegation to the EEC to try to get a better deal for our fishermen?

Mr. Millan: I am always interested in such offers, even from the unlikeliest of sources. The Government have already made it clear that the Commission's proposals on limits are unacceptable. That is why we must negotiate limits more satisfactory to our industry.

Mr. Robert Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has had from


the Scottish Trawlers' Federation regarding the financial prospects of the fishing industry.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: The Scottish Trawlers' Federation wrote to the former Secretary of State on 20th April requesting a meeting to discuss a number of important issues, including its financial position. Our officials met the federation last week and my right hon. Friend will see the federation in the course of the next few weeks.

Mr. Hughes: I am very grateful for that reply. At the meeting with the officials, was it possible to sort out the differences of base lines with regard to calculations for earnings, which was a cause of dispute between the Government and the STF? Notwithstanding that the most recent figures show a very welcome upturn in terms of earnings, how quickly can the Government respond if matters change drastically in the near future?

Mr. Brown: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the constructive approach that he adopted in January—unlike the exaggerated approach of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat). The industry was proclaiming in January that there would not be an industry in March, so I have news for the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South, as well as a reply for my hon. Friend.—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) does not know much about this. He will not like the reply because it is a good one.
Earnings per day at sea for the first quarter of 1976 are 42 per cent. above 1975 levels. Average prices of white fish at Aberdeen reached record levels in the first two weeks of April. The indications are that the vastly improved earnings levels are being sustained. In addition, I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that, if there is any drastic reduction in earnings or anything serious affecting the industry, we shall, of course, give it urgent consideration.

Mr. Sproat: Cannot the hon. Gentleman see that it is absurdly misleading to calculate the industry's viability over the whole year merely by extrapolating the earnings over only a short optimum period? Will he say something about the latest situation on EEC reference prices?

Mr. Brown: Even I can understand that it is not wise to anticipate earnings in detail. All I am saying is that for the first three months and into April earnings have been well above what the industry itself was predicting, so I have a right to claim that we were right in the first instance.
As regards the EEC, action has been taken in the reference price for imports of cod. However, as the hon. Gentleman knows, we need imports, so the reference price is something that we want to watch constantly.

Mentally Handicapped Persons (Hospital Services)

Mr. Rifkind: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make a statement on the provision of hospital services for the mentally handicapped in Scotland over the next five years.

Mr.HarryEwing: The memorandum "The Health Service in Scotland—The Way Ahead" drew attention among other things to the need for improvements in hospital and community health services for the mentally handicapped in the next four years. I have no doubt that health boards will take full account of the principles in the memorandum in deciding how to meet the needs of their areas.

Mr. Rifkind: Does the Minister realise that nine out of every 10 beds for the mentally handicapped in Scotland are in hospitals built in the reign of Queen Victoria? Does he realise that we could deal with that problem without increasing public expenditure if the Government withdrew their legislation to abolish pay beds? That legislation is totally irrelevant to the needs of Scotland and will cost £40 million every year.

Mr. Ewing: The hon. Gentleman should get this matter into its proper perspective. The amount that we take from pay beds in Scotland in terms of annual income is almost nil compared with the National Health Service expenditure.

Mr. Rifkind: Half a million pounds.

Mr. Ewing: Half a million pounds will hardly cure the problems which were created in the reign of Queen Victoria. The problem has grown over the years, particularly as the Conservative Government concentrated resources on the acute


services rather than long-stay patients. This Government have now told the health boards to take greater account of the needs of long-stay patients. We have every confidence that the health boards will heed our request.

House building (Irvine New Town)

10. Mr. Lambie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied with the rate of house building, public and private, in Irvine New Town; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie): Yes. I am glad that Irvine Development Corporation has been able to overcome past difficulties with building contractors, and I note that it is now in discussion with the local authorities about meeting future housing needs in the area.

Mr. Lambie: My hon. Friend is new in the job, but he is the only one who is happy about the situation in Irvine. Is he aware that the Irvine Development Corporation is building houses for higher rents in Scotland for general needs within a 10-mile radius of Irvine? Will he consult his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State responsible for housing with a view to encouraging Cunninghame District Council to build houses to let at reasonable rents for young people in Irvine and Kilwinning?

Mr. Mackenzie: I am not as new to the job as all that, because I have been following this matter with some care. I was answering the point put to me by my hon. Friend regarding the difficulties of the development corporation, particularly with builders in the area. I note that the local authorities are to meet the Irvine Development Corporation. I think that it is better to wait until we see how those discussions progress before we make any further comments.

Unemployment

Mr. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what additional measures he proposes to deal with unemployment in Scotland.

Mr. Millan: The Government have already taken substantial steps to reduce unemployment. In addition to measures to encourage investment and training, we

have introduced a recruitment subsidy for school leavers and a job creation programme for which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has recently announced additional funds. So far, these schemes have helped to create or protect over 13,000 jobs in Scotland.
It is now essential that these measures should he reinforced by a continuation of the fight against inflation so that the economic recovery, of which there are now signs, is consolidated and encouraged.

Mr. Henderson: Does not the Secretary of State acknowledge, particularly and somewhat ironically in view of the terms of the Employment Protection Act brought in by his Government, that we now have evidence of further redundancies coming in Scotland over the next few months which will swell the figures and that the news of, for example, the Marathon situation must accentuate this evidence? Is there not a case right now for two measures: first, immediately to increase the budget of the SDA so that it can make an impact on unemployment over the coming months and, secondly. to ensure that there is a fixed preference policy laid down for North Sea oil and gas development whereby Scottish companies are enabled to get the lion's share of the business?

Mr. Millan: There is already a memorandum of understanding with the offshore operators, which is working very well. I have already said that if the SDA, with which I am in close touch, feels that its budget is inadequate it will no doubt ask me for more. It has not done so.

Mr. Buchan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, despite the hypocrisy of SNP Members, the level of unemployment is totally unacceptable to many Labour Members? Does he further agree that one of the best methods of dealing with it would be to try to persuade SNP Members, particularly their Chief Whip, to cease denigrating the efforts of the Scottish working people in the motor car industry, and that the phrase "Put Scotland First" sounds a little hollow when it is uttered from the driving seat of a Japanese Datsun or a Swedish Volvo?

Mr. Millan: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. It is utter hypocrisy for


SNP Members to talk about preference for Scottish industry when they themselves buy foreign goods.

Mr. Younger: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he is giving the impression that he simply does not know what to do about this level of unemployment? As nearly 3,000 Scots are being put out of work every month by the Government's policies, will he not suggest to his colleagues giving up the idea of nationalising North Sea oil and spending the money on creating Scottish jobs?

Mr. Millan: That is perhaps the most absurd supplementary question that we have had, even from the hon. Gentleman.

Dr. Bray: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Government's actions have preserved a large number of jobs in Scotland? Is he also aware that we look forward to new jobs being created by the entrepreneurial activities of the SDA? What and how much may we expect in that direction?

Mr. Millan: I am hoping for quite important initiatives from the SDA quite soon now. I ask my hon. Friend to await them. I want to make it absolutely clear that I am not in the least complacent about the Scottish unemployment situation. I have said that the figures are appalling and unacceptable. I stand by that, but we are doing everything possible to reduce the figures.

Mr. Donald Stewart: In spite of the obsessional attitude of the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan), does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the STUC has said that at a time when there ought to be a decline in unemployment in Scotland it is on the increase, and that the CBI has said that there is no sign of any kind of boom? Will he, therefore, give serious attention to the two points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson)?

Mr. Millan: I think that I have already answered those two points. I know that Opposition Members are very sensitive about the Datsun car—so sensitive, in fact, that the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Watt) seems to have absconded from here, probably in his Datsun.

Teachers (Strathclyde Region)

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many newly qualified primary and secondary teachers, respectively, will leave colleges of education in the Strathclyde Region at the summer vacation; and how many vacancies for teachers will be available.

Mr. Millan: About 1,200 primary teachers and 1,500 secondary teachers are expected to qualify from the four colleges in the Strathclyde Region at the end of this session. The regional education authority cannot yet estimate the total number of vacancies in the schools this summer.

Mr. Dempsey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I could give him an estimate that in the Lanarkshire sub-area there will be scores of primary teachers unemployed under the present arrangements? Is he further aware that, by our reducing the size of classes to 30, those teachers could all be employed? Is it not time, therefore, that the Treasury was told in the strongest possible language to end the present policy of crazy economics in order to give these people employment? It has cost more than £4,000 per head to train these people.

Mr. Millan: This is a serious situation. There are certainly not enough jobs available for all teachers coming out of colleges. I cannot say at present what the gap will be, because no final figures are available, but I am arranging to see that we have the most up-to-date estimates, and we shall be having discussions with the education authorities about this matter. The figures to which the education authorities are working in recruitment are the figures negotiated in the contract of service with the teachers' organisations. The first aim must be to get all the schools in Scotland adequately staffed.
My hon. Friend comes from Lanarkshire, which has had the worst pupil-teacher ratio of any area in Scotland for many years now and a long history of part-time education. He will be glad to know that the Strathclyde regional authority estimates that at the start of the next session part-time education will be eliminated and for the first time we should have adequate staffing everywhere


in Scotland. That is a very bright side of the picture.
However, the other side of the picture is the possibility that not all teachers coming out of colleges will be able to get jobs. This is obviously a matter of serious concern, and I am closely in touch with the education authorities about it. But there is no simple answer to this problem.

Mr. Speaker: We are not debating this subject now.

Glasgow

Mr. Gordon Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will pay an official visit to Glasgow.

Mr. Millan: I am frequently in Glasgow on official business and will meet the General Council of the Scottish Trades Union Congress there on 28th May.

Mr. Wilson: When the Secretary of State visits Glasgow, will he take the opportunity of visiting the teacher-training colleges and explaining there, as well as in other parts of Scotland, including Tayside, why it is that jobs are not available for so many teachers who are coming from the colleges this year? Does he not understand that it seems to be the planning policies of a madhouse to budget for so many teachers without providing employment for them?

Mr. Millan: I have just answered a Questions about that, and I said that there is a serious problem. The bulk of the teachers coming out of the colleges this year went to them in 1973. If there is a lack of planning as far as they are concerned, it does not actually rest with this Government. But that does not mean that there is not a serious problem with which we must try to deal as best we can.
There is no point in the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) shouting about this, because he is a member of a party which is asking us to make immediate and drastic cuts in public expenditure. Education is the most expensive of local authority services and, within that, expenditure on teachers is the most expensive component. I have already said that I am well aware of the seriousness of this situation and we shall do everything we can to ameliorate it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must ask for shorter answers as well as shorter questions.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Does the Secretary of State accept that we on this side, as well as asking for cuts in Government spending, are asking for the right cuts and the right priorities? How on earth can it make economic sense to spend hundreds of millions of pounds on extending State control when we are not able to employ all our teachers and when yesterday in Fife there was a redundancy raffle of teachers because that county is faced with the problem of bringing down its teaching standards to the Government's own standards?

Mr. Millan: The hon. Gentleman's colleagues in the various education authorities concerned are calling for even more drastic cuts in education expenditure as well as in other kinds of expenditure.

Mr. Buchan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if he visited Glasgow, and went round the city, he would recognise that there is a great need for more and more education? We have a moral obligation to the people in the training colleges and it is imperative that we find room in the classrooms for the teachers we have trained. We dangled the prospectus before them and they accepted it.

Mr. Millan: I do not wholly agree with my hon. Friend, but I repeat that the schools in Glasgow will be better staffed this year than they have ever been and for the first time for many years there will be no part-time education in my hon. Friend's constituency or mine. I hope that my hon. Friend will take account of this, too.

Public Expenditure Cuts (Social Work Services)

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the latest effects of public expenditure cuts on services for retirement pensioners and those in geriatric wards of hospitals in Scotland.

Mr. Harry Ewing: The Public Expenditure White Paper (Cmnd. 6393) makes provision for an increase of 2 per cent. per annum in real terms in local authority expenditure on social work services; I am sure that local authorities


will take full account of the needs of the elderly in their budgets.
Similarly, health boards have been advised to give high priority to their services for the elderly within the 1½ per cent. growth rate for revenue expenditure on hospital and community services provided for in the White Paper.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I thank the Minister for his reply. Is he aware that Councillor George Foulkes, the director of Age Concern in Edinburgh, has expressed grave concern that existing services to pensioners may deteriorate greatly as a result of the cuts? Does not the Minister agree that a great many Scotsmen in these circumstances would be delighted if the immensely expensive Community Land Act were postponed indefinitely?

Mr. Ewing: I will certainly make arrangements for the hon. Member to receive a copy of the reply which Councillor George Foulkes got to his letter. The expenditure on local authority social work services has increased at the rate of eight times that of other local authority services over the past five years, whereas in the health services the growth rate has decreased from 4½ per cent. to 1½ per cent. This is something of which a Government dealing with public expenditure have to be cognizant.

Mr. Buchan: Would my hon. Friend agree that while it is appropriate for those of us who reject the statutory line behind the public expenditure cuts it is gross hypocrisy for those who demand even more massive cuts to complain about them? Will he instruct the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) that education happens to be an aspect of public ownership and control?

Mr. Ewing: We are all politicians and we all agree that one of the advantages of being in Opposition is that it gives one the freedom to be totally irresponsible, and there is no greater expert on that than the Conservative Party.

Mr. Thompson: Will the Minister positively encourage the provision of more sheltered housing for the elderly?

Mr. Ewing: Yes, indeed I will.

Mr. Rifkind: How does the Minister justify to himself that there will be

inadequate improvements in the position of the elderly in Scotland while at the same time the Government are insisting on the provision of hundreds of millions of pounds for the nationalisation of Scottish shipbuilding and Scottish aviation?

Mr. Ewing: This must be the day when there is a Press release about nationalisation from Conservative Central Office. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary responsible for the social services explained earlier, the standard of service being given to the elderly, particularly in the Strathclyde area, is now much better and much more efficient, even with fewer people working in it, than it has ever been. That is how the situation is justified.

Elderly Persons (Domiciliary Services)

Mr. Russell Johnston: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has received representations from the Scottish Old People's Welfare Council (Age Concern, Scotland) about a deterioration in the domiciliary services for the elderly; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. McElhone: I will send the hon. Member a copy of the reply which my right hon. Friend has sent to the representations made by Age Concern, Scotland. The main point of that reply is that the rate support grant settlement for 1976–77 made sufficient provision for social work services to be maintained, but that decisions on the level of such services, including domiciliary services for the elderly, are for the social work authorities themselves in the light of their assessment of needs and priorities.

Mr. Johnston: Does not the Minister agree that it is alarming if the facts that Age Concern has are that the Government are arranging for the maintenance of the existing service but appear to establish that the total number of those aged over 75 will go up by about 18 per cent. in the period 1973 to 1981? Are these statistics, which Age Concern supplied, correct?

Mr. McElhone: I must put on record that Councillor Foulkes, who is a director of Age Concern, appreciates that the Government have a difficulty over constraint in public expenditure and he said so in the letter. Of course as a director of this particular organisation he is concerned. I will send the hon. Gentleman


a copy of the letter, which indicates that compared with 1969 to 1970, when we spent £21 million on social services in Scotland, we spent £75 million between 1974 and 1975.

Area Health Boards

Mr. Gray: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many persons are employed in the administration of the area health boards in Scotland; and how this figure compares with the total number employed at the date of the creation of these bodies.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Staffing statistics are not available for 1st April 1974, the date of reorganisation of the National Health Service; but at 30th September 1974 the number of administrative and clerical staff, including former special grades and ambulance officers, was 10,696 expressed as whole-time equivalents. At 30th September 1975, the latest date for which figures are available, the number of such staff had increased to 12,197. The figures quoted include the staff employed by the Common Services Agency as well as the staff of the 15 health boards.

Mr. Gray: Does the Minister accept that an increase of nearly 2,000 in such a period is hardly the sort of increase which is acceptable in the present circumstances? Does he accept that this is a region of bureaucracy which lends itself to empire-building? Will he do his utmost to effect some sort of control so that this increase is not continued?

Mr. Ewing: Yes, I agree that the increase is totally unacceptable. Of course, like the other reorganisations in which the hon. Member's party became involved, this has, unfortunately, led to an increase in bureaucracy. We have required the NHS authorities to freeze their staff levels at the figures prevailing at the end of February 1976 because we are not prepared to accept an increase of this order.

Victoria Hospital, Kirkcaldy

Mr. Gourlay: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement)n the programme for the provision of geriatric beds at Victoria Hospital, Kirkcaldy.

Mr. Harry Ewing: The Fife Health Board proposes to provide 60 geriatric

and 90 psycho-geriatric beds in a new building on a site at Whyteman's Brae, Kirkcaldy, adjacent to the Victoria Hospital. Oncosts associated with the difficult nature of the site are at present unacceptably high, and the building division of the Common Services Agency, acting on behalf of the Fife Health Board, is urgently examining means of reducing these oncosts to an acceptable level.

Mr. Gourlay: Will my hon. Friend accept that there is a considerable degree of urgency for this project to be started as soon as possible? Recently, a friend of mine was discharged from the geriatric unit in the Victoria Hospital to live by himself. Two weeks later, he was found dead in bed. This was one of many instances of people not getting proper treatment in geriatric wards. I plead with my hon. Friend to make sure that this new extension of the Victoria Hospital is started as soon as possible.

Mr. Ewing: I accept fully the urgent need for the facilities described. On the subject of the on-cost of over £1 million —the figure with which we started and which we are desperately trying to keep down—I have had early meetings with my officials and I assure my hon. Friend that I shall push on with the matter as quickly as possible.

A985 (Westfield)

Mr. Adam Hunter: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has had regarding the extension of the existing 30 m.p.h. speed limit on the trunk road (Route A985) at Westfield, Kincardine; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. McElhone: Only those from my hon. Friend on behalf of the local residents. After careful consideration of the relevant factors I concluded that the extension of the 30 m.p.h. limit was not justified.

Mr. Hunter: Is the Minister aware that this short link of dual carriageway is creating serious problems for people living in Westfield, Kincardine? Is he also aware that his refusal to impose a 30-mile an hour limit for the area is greatly regretted? Does he not agree that there are two further measures left open


to him? The first is to provide a suitable footpath leading from that area. The second is to provide high-powered lights over the dual carriageway. Will he do all he can to relieve the anxieties of residents?

Mr. McElhone: I am always grateful to my hon. Friend for his intelligent supplementary questions. He is always most diligent in looking after his constituents' interests. I would inform my hon. Friend that there have been two accidents on that stretch of road in the last three years, and in neither case was there evidence to suggest that excessive speed was the cause.
As for the two further measures suggested by my hon. Friend, I repeat that a report on the lighting situation has been requested by the Fife Regional Council. When I receive that report, I shall discuss it with my noble Friend to see what improvements are required. As for the other point, I shall investigate the situation and write to my hon. Friend.

DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL AFFAIRS

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: asked the Lord Advocate whether he will consider any recommendation from the Scottish Law Commission to establish a Department of Legal Affairs.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. Ronald King Murray): Any recommendation from the Scottish Law Commission, including any recommendation for the establishment of a Department of Legal Affairs, will be most carefully considered by Her Majesty's Government. The hon. Gentleman will, however, recall that, in answer to a Question which he asked me on 11th February 1976, I indicated the Government's view that, after devolution, the decision whether or not to implement any such recommendation would fall properly to the Scottish administration. This remains the Government's position.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Does it not therefore follow that the Government intend to leave the final decision on this matter to the future Scottish Assembly, once established?

The Lord Advocate: No inference for or against that view can be drawn yet.

The Government are considering the many representations made to them and will have to reach a view on them.

Mr. Buchan: Even before the establishment of a legal department takes place, will my right hon. and learned Friend consider again submitting the case of Patrick Meehan to the Secretary of State for consideration, particularly in the light of the Devlin Report and the question of identification? This is a matter of great anxiety and disquiet in Scotland.

The Lord Advocate: I am answering a later Question on that subject.

COURT VISITS

Mr. Canavan: asked the Lord Advocate how many official court visits he has made in the last year.

The Lord Advocate: One visit, which was to Glasgow.

Mr. Canavan: I urge my right hon. and learned Friend to make more court visits. From his experience, either as Lord Advocate or previously, in his court visits has he ever come across a judge or a lay magistrate calling upon a solicitor to offer legal advice or assistance under Section 2(4) of the Legal Advice and Assistance Act 1972? Will my right hon. and learned Friend recommend further use of that provision, and also that more details be given of the legal advice and assistance service to people who are cited to appear in court?

The Lord Advocate: My hon. Friend has asked detailed questions and I would require notice of them.

CORROBORATION

Mr. Russell Johnston: asked the Lord Advocate whether he proposes to abolish the need for corroboration in criminal law in Scotland.

The Lord Advocate: No, Sir. In my view, the general rule requiring corroboration should remain. There are some statutory exceptions to this general rule, and it may well be that from time to time other exceptions would fall to be


considered as points of difficulty arise in this field.

Mr. Johnston: While accepting the general point which the right hon. and learned Gentleman makes, is there not a case for looking again at the matter and trying to establish some distinction between trivial and serious offences? The fact, for example, that two traffic wardens are required in a relatively trivial offence seems somewhat unnecessary.

The Lord Advocate: Value judgments come into the question of what is trivial and what is not. Some of the exceptions are in the poaching Acts and others are in the Road Traffic Act.

Mr. Fairbairn: While protecting jealously the important safeguard of corroboration, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman see whether there are not statutory and technical offences which could be excluded from the general rule?

The Lord Advocate: I am always open to representations on that topic.

DEVOLUTION

Mr. Rifkind: asked the Lord Advocate what rôle he envisages for the Scottish Law Officers after the implementation of the Government's policy on devolution.

The Lord Advocate: It would be premature for me to put forward any final view on the rôle of the Scottish Law Officers after devolution. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the Government's White Paper on Devolution proposes that the Lord Advocate should remain a United Kingdom Minister with many of his existing responsibilities. Arrangements will, of course, require to be made for the discharge of such Scottish Law Officer functions as may be devolved.

Mr. Rifkind: Do the Government's proposals involve the Solicitor-General for Scotland also remaining a United Kingdom Minister? If so, what provision is to be made for the Assembly to be advised on legal matters?

The Lord Advocate: I am not in a position to make a statement on that. It is among the many matters which the Government have to consider.

MR. PATRICK MEEHAN

Mr. David Steel: asked the Lord Advocate what recent representations he has received concerning the case of Mr. Patrick Meehan.

The Lord Advocate: I recently received representations from two solicitors who are members of the Patrick Meehan Committee. Following these representations, I instructed the Crown Agent to precognosce various witnesses. This was done. Thereafter, I instructed the Strathclyde police to investigate certain matters which had come to light.
The results of these inquiries were submitted to me for my consideration, and I directed that a copy be immediately sent to the Scottish Office so that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland would have all the relevant information to enable him to reach a decision on the case.

Mr. Steel: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman, if he is in touch with the Secretary of State, say how long it will be before we get a decision? Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman now regret that he and the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) persistently refused to refer this case to the High Court for further consideration? When it is all over, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman undertake to support the idea of an inquiry held by someone outside the Scottish legal or police world into the whole handling of this case?

The Lord 'Advocate: It would be inappropriate for me to attempt to answer the last point. There is some misunderstanding about this matter. For example, the Sunday Times, in its leader on 9th May, which the hon. Gentleman is echoing, stated that efforts during the past two years to get the Meehan case reopened had been regularly rejected, on my advice, by the Secretary of State for Scotland. That statement is inaccurate. The matter is now before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland for consideration, and it is unlikely that he will be in a position to make a state-before early next week.

Mr. Fairbairn: I speak as a member of the Meehan Committee and as his


counsel at his trial. Now that the Lord Advocate has received a very painstaking and impartial report by Assistant Chief Constable Arthur Bell and Detective Chief Superintendent John McDougall, which establishes beyond peradventure Mr. Meehan's innocence of this crime, will he take immediate steps to ensure that this man, wrongly imprisoned, is released at once and thereby remove one blot from the law of Scotland? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman also have an inquiry made into how this appalling event has been allowed to drag on for so long?

The Lord Advocate: The hon. and learned Gentleman has made an impassioned appeal but it would be inappropriate for me to respond when the matter is before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. It is his decision, and it is an important one. Certainly it should not be based on emotive considerations.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that one feature in particular seriously concerns lay people like myself, and I hope that he will take it into consideration? The solicitor for a man who had recently died sought special permission from the Scottish Law Society for this exception from the rule of confidentiality so that he could make the information available, since it was suggested that there was a strong possibility that a miscarriage of justice had occurred. How long can a solicitor keep that information while a man stays in prison? Will my right hon. and learned Friend undertake to discuss the rule of confidentiality with the Scottish Law Society, and if necessary consider, with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, referring the matter to the Royal Commission on the Legal Profession? Would he also draw this idea to the attention of the Attorney-General?

The Lord Advocate: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will also have heard what my hon. Friend has said. The degree to which the doctrine of confidentiality can extend is a matter for some concern.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether this report is one of a factual nature, con-

taining admissions and analyses of the case, or whether he has passed it to the Secretary of State with advice as to what should be done in connection with the matter on legal grounds?

The Lord Advocate: It would be wrong for me to go beyond the statement I have already made.

CRIMINAL PROFITS (EXPROPRIATION)

3.32 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to expropriate any proceeds of a crime and any monies derived from the commission of crime.
The purpose of the Bill is to give a discretionary power to the Lord Advocate in Scotland and to the Attorney-General in England to expropriate in appropriate cases, in the hands of the receiver or of the giver or of any intermediate
handler, any sums paid to persons who have committed crimes and who have obtained benefit by describing, writing or illustrating the commission of those crimes.
I hope that the Bill will have the universal approval of the House. It has been prompted by the formation by some of the great train robbers of a company to make profits out of securing film and book rights in respect of the description of their crime. I believe that this callous proposal has shocked the honest and moral feelings of the country. Here we have a situation in which honest profits are constantly being removed from diligent, industrious and upright people but in which a band of men who obtained £2½ million or thereabouts from a deliberate and calculated crime, of which sum practically nothing has been recovered, propose to obtain further massive benefits from the society whom they wronged for their own interest. I believe that it is an affront to the morality of the ordinary citizen, and certainly of affront to the silent tomb of Driver Mills whose health, if not whose life, was part of the price paid for the benefit so cynically and ruthlessly taken by the band in question.
The difficulty arises that the cheek of the offence, or indeed of any offence, may be so appealing that people forget that the activity was in itself appalling. I


fear that there is a tendency for people to glamorise the efficient, daring or frightful execution of crime.
One of the great and indeed amazing difficulties of the media is that they have to give equal regard to the good and to the bad, to the worthy and to the unworthy. They give equal coverage and glamour to both, and make no moral judgment on the activities which they report. I make no criticism necessarily about that matter, but society must have a defence to demonstrate that it does not look with equal regard on the immoral, unfair and dishonest act and on the moral, fair and honest and industrious act of the citizen.
In these days we see those who are willing to prosecute alleged private offences by those in public life but who nevertheless exalt criminal activities of people who commit brutal offences. There is a feeling, and indeed a fear, that because the media fictionalise reality, sin is in some way excellent and represents an accolade to those who have committed it. Crime must never be justified for its own glamour and must never be seen to benefit those who choose to take the risk of committing crime and to obtain benefit for themselves—a benefit which they have not won and do not deserve—at the expense of those from whom they take it or as a result of whose lives or suffering they enjoy it.
It is the neutrality of the media which creates a new moral dilemma in society and which it is the duty of this House to correct. It is for that reason that this House should support the Bill to ensure that dishonesty, at whatever point, cannot be seen to be a road to its own benefit.
In the present state of society and violence in the world, in view of our difficulties which have been created in this country, one can get the horrific, but not unlikely, picture that those who have committed the most obscene offences against our society are able to get the largest benefits by writing about them, or indeed by making a film about them. What could make a better epic than the Balcombe Street siege in London and the consequent details of the plot? It is the human tendency to be excited by violence, daring, risk and all that is involved in adventure and which, rightly or wrongly, provides its own selling point.
One factor which demonstrates this point is that the films which have lasted the longest and which are the most popular are those detailing the exploits in the war—exploits which are as near to criminal activity as the exploits of man may ever reach. [HON. MEMBERS "Oh."] I say that with no disrespect to those patriotic people who are involved in saving their country, but I repeat that that activity is as near to daring crime as human conduct ever comes. It is the appeal of the daring nature of the offence against which we must take measures to protect our society.
Some may say that a released criminal has already served his sentence and has come out into the fresh air—that is, if he has not already escaped to South America in order not to serve a sentence. But let us be clear where we stand. That person can never entirely atone and it is wrong to say, by use of a mathematical formula, that one is entitled to commit a crime, to pay for it in eight years, and then benefit from it not simply once but a second time. I believe that it would be the wish of the people of this country of all parties, all sections and all outlooks, that people should not be entitled cynically to benefit by brushing aside all moral scruples—and to benefit again from a dishonesty from which they have already benefited a first time. Virtue may be its own reward, but I am sure that vice must never be seen or allowed to be a source of it.

3.40 p.m.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Is the hon. Member seeking to oppose the motion?

Mr. Grocott: Yes. I wish to oppose the motion of the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn). In doing so I must inevitably preface my remarks, as anyone in my position would want to do, by saying that I am in no way applauding the activities to which the hon. and learned Gentleman has referred. I dislike crime—the sort of criminality which he has described —in the same way as does the hon. and learned Gentleman. The reason why I believe the House should reject the hon. and learned Gentleman's motion is that in my view the Bill is based on a bad principle.
Any superficial examination of that principle will show that it is unworkable in practice. The criminal law in this country by and large rests on the assumption that if someone is found guilty of an offence he is found guilty in open court, the sentence is determined in open court and the criminal knows exactly what price he has to pay to expunge his debt to society—if that is the way to describe it. The criminal knows that on completion of his period of imprisonment or on payment of his fine, or whatever, his debt is paid. There then comes into operation the cardinal principle that that person is thereafter in exactly the same position as anyone else. His rights as a citizen are fundamentally the same as the rights of the rest of us.
We all know that in practice this does not work. We all know that for many people the penalties of crime are not ended when imprisonment is over. We know that for many the penalty continues, perhaps because they are not able to find employment or perhaps because of the social breakdown that results from long periods of imprisonment. We all recognise that, but it does not detract from the fundamentally desirable principle that on completion of the sentence that should be the end of the matter and there should not be a situation in which for months or years afterwards a different kind of law operates for that person.
I also feel that the hon. and learned Gentleman's proposal is unworkable in practice. How on earth would we put this proposal into operation? How would we determine a situation if someone convicted of a criminal offence were, later in life, to write his memoirs, part of which were concerned with his criminal activities and part of which were concerned with something quite different? Such a person might have involved himself in some quite laudable activity after his criminal activities. After all, in the past Her Majesty's Government have frequently found that people whom they have imprisoned have become Prime Ministers in their own countries. It might be that people have done other things in their lives besides serve a period of imprisonment. How could we determine which part of the reward for writing

memoirs or an autobiography would be attributable to criminal activities? That seems to be a fundamentally unworkable principle.
It also seems that we would be quite incapable of determining how someone might benefit from criminality in ways other than writing memoirs. How could we discover whether someone had been offered a job—it happens frequently—because of some previous notoriety? I do not see how we could possibly distinguish between that kind of benefit from criminality and the kind of benefit with which the hon. and learned Gentleman is dealing. There are many other ways in which this proposal is unworkable. If details of a crime were passed on to a criminal's children, could such material then be published? There are endless ramifications.
To prevent people from writing about their deeds, criminal or otherwise, is an undesirable precedent. It is something which we should be wary of approving. There have been people convicted of the most appalling crimes. I refer to perhaps the worst of all, those who were convicted of Nazi war crimes, such as Speer, who recently published his autobiography "Spandau Diary". That man was able to write about his experience as a Nazi, of some of the most abominable crimes which he has committed and about his period of imprisonment. About the only benefit that has come from that sordid history is that some self-examination and some examination of a society that was very sick has been published. Whether the individual concerned has benefited is a side issue.
It is desirable that books such as that should be written. If leave were given to bring in this Bill and if the Bill were enacted, we would be faced with a situation in which the only people who could write about crime and criminal activities were, presumably, retired lawyers and policemen, relatives and friends of criminals, journalists and the like. We would be denied—and this is important to anyone interested in penal reform and related matters—any possibility of reading the writings of criminals about their experiences. I hope that the House will reject the hon. and learned Gentleman's


motion on the grounds that his proposal is wrong in principle, unworkable in practice and would lead to a great number of undesirable effects.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn, Mr. Ian Gow, Mr.

in Bills and nominations of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business): —

The House divided:  Ayes 104, Noes 77.

Division No. 131.
AYES
[3.50 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Goodhew, Victor
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Parkinson, Cecil


Banks, Robert
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Penhaligon, David


Beith, A. J.
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Bell, Ronald
Gray, Hamish
Rathbone, Tim


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Grylls, Michael
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Biggs-Davison, John
Hall, Sir John
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Bottomley, Peter
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Henderson, Douglas
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Holland, Philip
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Bradford, Rev Robert
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Brotherton, Michael
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Jessel, Toby
Sandelson, Neville


Budgen, Nick
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Kershaw, Anthony
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Costain, A. P.
Knox, David
Sproat, Iain


Critchley, Julian
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Crouch, David
Lawrence, Ivan
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Lawson, Nigel
Stradling Thomas, J.


Doig, Peter
Le Marchant, Spencer
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Dunlop, John
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lloyd, Ian
Thompson, George


Elliott, Sir William
McCusker, H.
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


English, Michael
Macfarlane, Neil
Wall, Patrick


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Mather, Carol
Walters, Dennis


Eyre, Reginald
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Weatherill, Bernard


Faulds, Andrew
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Welsh, Andrew


Fell, Anthony
Molyneaux, James
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Monro, Hector
Winterton, Nicholas


Freud, Clement
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Fry, Peter
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Younger, Hon George


Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)



Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Mudd, David
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Glyn, Dr Alan
Onslow, Cranley
Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn and


Goodhart, Philip
Page, John (Harrow West)
Mr. Malcolm Rifkind.




NOES


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
George, Bruce
O'Halloran, Michael


Bean, R. E.
Graham, Ted
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Grocott, Bruce
Radice, Giles


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hardy, Peter
Richardson, Miss Jo


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Canavan, Dennis
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Carmichael, Nell
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Cartwright, John
Hunter, Adam
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
John, Brynmor
Rooker, J. W.


Coleman, Donald
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Roper, John


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Spriggs, Leslie


Corbett, Robin
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Cronin, John
Kelley, Richard
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Cryer,Bob
Lamborn, Harry
Torney, Tom


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Lomond, James
Urwin, T. W.


Dempsey, James
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Leadbitter, Ted
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Eadie, Alex
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Ward, Michael


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Loyden, Eddie
Watkinson, John


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Mackenzie, Gregor
White, James (Pollok)


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
McNamara, Kevin
Whitehead, Phillip


Flannery, Martin
Madden, Max
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Freeson, Reginald
Marks, Kenneth
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Mr. Stan Thorne and


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Noble, Mike
Mr. Bryan Davies.

Hamish Gray, Mr. Michael Mates, Dr. Rhodes Boyson, Mrs. Jill Knight, Mr. Teddy Taylor, Mr. Jerry Wiggin and Mr. Nicholas Winterton.

CRIMINAL PROFITS (EXPROPRIATION)

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn accordingly presented a Bill to expropriate any proceeds of a crime and any monies derived from the commission of crime; and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 18th June and to be printed. [Bill 143.]

SUPPLY

[20th ALLOTED DAY]—considered.

ROYAL NAVY

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. John Ellis.]

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: In some ways, this is the most important of the three debates on the Service Estimates which follow the recent two-day debate on the Defence White Paper. To see in proper perspective the effects on our maritime forces of the Government's defence cuts, we must look not only at the latest White Paper but also at the combined effect of all the measures that they have taken during the past year or so as a result of those cuts —three lots of cuts, amounting in total to the staggering sum of more than £6,000 million at 1975 survey prices.
I do not propose to rehearse all the Opposition's severe condemnations of the Government's wrong-headed approach to defence expenditure. We have made our position on that quite clear both in this House and elsewhere during the past year. But it is worth pointing out that our criticisms have been confirmed substantially by the Report of the all-party Defence Sub-Committee of this House, to whose diligent efforts during the past year the whole House is greatly indebted.
As a background to our debate today, it is worth looking at what the Government have done. The reductions amount to 5,000 in men, from 79,000 to 74,000, 15 per cent. of the planned number of frigates, destroyers and mine countermeasures vessels, 25 per cent. in conventionally powered submarines, 30 per cent. in other vessels including afloat support vessels, 25 per cent. in the Nimrod force, and more than a quarter in the amphibious force.
In that connection, we read today in The Guardian how enormous further cuts have been proposed to the Labour


Party's National Executive this morning. We read that a draft paper to reduce spending by £1,000 million by 1980 has been put forward and that this would involve a combination of either a rundown of the Polaris force, the elimination of army combat forces outside Europe, a smaller ship fleet, reduced ground force levels in Europe, or a cheaper air force. It says that it would require the removal of Polaris and army forces outside Europe and would also mean paying off large surface ships, cutting forces in Europe, including a halving of the British Army of the Rhine by 25,000 to 30,000 men, and equipping the RAF to cover less than the full spectrum of tactical air missions and eliminating the multirole combat aircraft programme.
The report goes on:
The implication … apart from the enormous international repercussions, would be a big cutback in jobs.
The only good part of the report is that it says that the study group which produced it was denied co-operation by the Ministry of Defence. We on this side of the House are delighted by that. I do not see how such proposals could be supported or accepted by anyone who wished this country to remain in NATO or who wished to preserve our free society.
We welcome the Under-Secretary to the Front Bench for his first speech today. We have had our differences in the past about Northern Ireland, but they do not extend to the sea. We know that the hon. Gentleman has always taken a special interest in defence. I congratulate him on his appointment, just as I congratulate him, in advance, on his speech. However, I trust that he will be able to repudiate in the strongest possible terms the proposals put forward to the Labour Party's National Executive this morning.
The Opposition agree strongly with two parts of the Government's policy. We agree with their recognition of, though not with their action about, the massive and increasing Soviet threat against us. We agree with their support of NATO as our top defence commitment. Our fundamental disagreement, apart, of course, from the cuts, stems strategically from our conviction that we are now witnessing an important development of the threat—a development

which affects this country especially. This consists of the Soviet maritime build-up and world-wide naval deployment which, if there is a virtual stalemate in NATO's central region, provides Russia with ever-widening military operations well below the so-called threshold of nuclear conflict.
We sometimes forget the extent of our dependence on our sea routes throughout the Southern Atlantic and the Indian Ocean and the threat to them which has been increased by events in Southern Africa and by the Government's regrettable decision almost a year ago to terminate the Simonstown Agreement.
At present, Britain obtains 66 per cent. of her oil from the Persian Gulf, France 52 per cent. and Germany 62 per cent. Those already very high figures will increase sharply over the next decade, despite the development of North Sea oil and gas. Despite this continued and increasing dependence on these oil supplies and the trade routes which carry them, there are no substantial or coordinated efforts by the Western European nations to protect their interests in this crucial region.
The sea routes can be protected only by a greater maritime effort by the West, and the only organisation which exists to carry out that task is NATO. However, as the Government never tire of telling us, NATO stops at the Tropic of Cancer. But the Supreme Allied Commander in the Atlantic has in fact been authorised to plan outside this area in the Southern Atlantic and in the Indian Ocean, and recent developments have reinforced the urgent need for NATO to take more positive steps to safeguard our vital supply routes throughout this area.
Admiral Lewin, who until recently was one of NATO's foremost naval commanders, sounded a severe warning on television last October when he said:
I believe that by far the greatest risk lies in the part of the world where we are vulnerable and the Soviets are not, and this is at sea. The West depends utterly on freedom of sea communications … and the Soviet Union's fleet now exceeds anything that could be remotely justified simply for defence … The maritime balance has continued and is continuing to swing against us, so that this balance is now dangerously marginal.
The Secretary of State himself acknowledged the dangers in an article in Survival last year in which he said:


The growth of Soviet naval forces over the past decade has been a particularly worrying development, especially when one remembers how little the Soviet Union depends on the seas for the purposes of legitimate trade—in sharp contrast to ourselves and some of our allies".
The 1976 White Paper, like its predecessor, clearly spells out the extent of the threat posed by the Soviet navy. It itemises on page 5 of Chapter 1 the way in which in the past year it has increased in both numbers and quality. If we compare Figure 1 on page 6 with the corresponding Figure 3 of last year's White Paper, we see that in the past year alone the balance of surface ships in the Eastern Atlantic has deteriorated still further—from 1 to 1·7 in the Russian's favour last year to 1 to 2 now—and in submarines from 1 to 1·6 to 1 to 1·7 in the same period.
In view of those figures and the dire warnings about Russian naval power which have been sounded in the past year, the portion of the White Paper devoted to NATO strategy on pages 9 and 10 makes extraordinary reading.
The Government virtually ignore the maritime threat in chapter 1. There is only a passing reference to a wide range of options to restore the territorial and maritime integrity of the Alliance. The passages on strategy would be more suitable for Switzerland or some entirely landlocked country than they are for Great Britain. But sea power is not important for this country just because it is an island, or just because of its importance for European food and other resources; it is important for keeping the sea and air lanes open in an emergency, when reinforcements have to be brought across the Atlantic and the Channel. That aspect of the matter has been left out of the passages on strategy.
As the White Paper points out, in the Eastern Atlantic Britain provides the major contribution—about 70 per cent. —of NATO's immediately available maritime forces. That contribution is vital to the security of the seaborne supply and reinforcement routes from North America to Europe. It is estimated that about 100,000 tons of supplies a day would be needed for American forces in Europe and most of that would have to go by sea. The theme and emphasis of the

White Paper on strategy seems to concentrate on the central area and neglect sea and air lanes and the flanks which remain of crucial importance.
In an article in the NATO Review, No. 3, published in 1974, the author pointed out that a basic concept of the Soviet general staff is the outflanking of Europe at both its wet flanks. The alarming expansion of the Soviet fleet seems to support that belief.
An important aspect of the dangers that we face at sea is graphically described by Admiral Gorshkov in his book "Red Star Rising", in which he reminds us that during World War II, for every operational U-boat Britain and the United States deployed 25 warships and 100 aircraft, and that for every German submariner at sea there were 100 British and American anti-submariners. He went on to ask this highly relevant question:
Therefore the question of the ratio of submarine to anti-submarine forces is of great interest even under present day conditions, since if anti-submarine warfare forces which were so numerous and technically up-to-date (for that time) possessing a vast superiority, turned out to be capable of only partially limiting the operations of diesel submarines, then what must this superiority be today in order to counter nuclear-powered submarines, whose combat capabilities cannot be compared with the capabilities of World War II submarines?
The admiral thus put his finger on the most important problem facing NATO's maritime forces today, which, despite the continued expansion of the Soviet fleet, has been largely ignored.
During our recent two-day debate on the White Paper I referred to some comments by the NATO Commander-in-Chief, Northern Europe, in which he drew attention to the extreme seriousness of the imbalance between the conventional forces on the two sides in that region. We must pay more attention to the security of the northern flank.
I now turn to the defence aspects of the cod war, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) hopes to return later. The House will agree that the Royal Navy deserves the highest praise for the brave and skilful way in which it has been carrying out an onerous and, in many ways, distasteful task in confronting a NATO ally in the lawful protection of our fishing fleets.
I do not intend to raise the fishing or legal aspects of this unfortunate dispute, but for some time I have been unhappy about the Government's handling of the wider aspects of the problem. The Government seem to attach too little weight to our NATO interest in the dispute. From the Government's policy one would hardly gather that Iceland is an important maritime surveillance base for NATO. Disturbing reports about Iceland leaving NATO have been coming thick and fast this week. That would be a serious blow to the Alliance.

Mr. James Johnson: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the attempted mediation by Dr. Joseph Luns should have been of slight comfort to those concerned with the NATO aspect of the situation?

Mr. Gilmour: I agree. The Opposition have pressed for mediation in this matter for months. We believe that it should take place under NATO auspices, but we do not believe that the Government's handling of the problem has been satisfactory.

Mr. James Johnson: It takes two to make a marriage. It takes two to walk together hand in hand. If Iceland will not come near us, Dr. Luns can shout his head off from the top of the Himalayas and it will make no difference. Our Ministers, and the Alliance have done all they humanly can. Why is the right hon. Gentleman so purblind as to say that it is our fault or the fault of the Alliance? There is a third party involved.

Mr. Gilmour: I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman on marriage. I never said that it was all our fault or that it was Dr. Luns' fault. Much of the fault lies with Iceland. The Government's handling of the problem was entirely characteristic of the way in which the present Prime Minister handled foreign affairs when he was Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary he blustered and blundered. It is high time that the Government took a new initiative.
Will the Under-Secretary tell the House whether NATO's capabilities in other areas have been seriously damaged by the cod war? How many frigates have been damaged, and what will be the cost of repairing them? It seems to many people that because our frigates are

sophisticated and expensive ships, they are at a disadvantage against the small, tough and inexpensive ships, which can sustain damage more easily. On the related topic of the security of our North Sea oil installations, I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us about the co-operation with our NATO allies. Can he also give assurances about the command, control and co-operation between the three Services and about the equipment that will be used for the protection of installations? It has been alleged that the five new protection vesesls that are being built will be too slow and not heavily enough armed. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us on that.
I turn to the question of the southern flank. The Government's decision to withdraw from the Mediterranean, which is glossed over so ineptly in the White Paper, was especially unfortunate because of the serious disarray in NATO's position on that flank. Admiral Johnson, Commander Allied Forces South, last year said of these cuts:
The United Kingdom's current proposal would greatly reduce her traditional rôle as a Mediterranean power. Further, it would seriously lessen our already limited conventional capabilities, our vital external reinforcements and our technical nuclear operations. I believe the results would far exceed those of her earlier withdrawals from East of Suez and would ultimately deal a heavy blow to our deterrent posture as well as eliminating an important stabilising influence in the region.
Subsequent events in the region have not contradicted that.
I must ask the hon. Gentleman to give the House a further explanation of the Government's decision about the supply of tritium, about which there has been considerable speculation in the Press. We should like to know, for example, what effect the decision is likely to have on the duration of the life of our Polaris missiles.
We on the Opposition side of the House unanimously support our commitment to NATO's central front in the shape of BAOR and the Second Tactical Air Force. Elsewhere, we believe that both in our national interests and in the NATO interest we should veer a little from a continental towards a more maritime-oriented strategy, backed by multi-purpose uncommitted reserves sufficiently flexible to be deployed in


Europe, or in support of our commitments elsewhere, or in unforeseen circumstances.
As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said in her famous speech in January,
The first duty of any Government is to safeguard its people against external aggression, to guarantee the survival of our way of life.
Nowhere is that more true than at sea. The Opposition have a clear responsibility to do all we can to ensure that, to borrow a recent expression of President Ford, the Government "stop cheating the country's defences". As my right hon. Friend emphasised in her speech, this is
a time when we need to strengthen our defences.
She added:
Of course, this places a burden upon us. But it is one that we must be willing to bear if we want our freedom to survive.
That is our policy. It is not the Government's policy. But our plain duty as an Opposition is to go on reminding the Government that if the realm is to be properly and effectively defended, and if we are to play our full part in the Atlantic Alliance, they must get their priorities right. At the very least, they must on no account impose any further cuts on defence.

4.24 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. A. E. P. Duffy): The right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mr. Gilmour) made a kind reference to me in his introductory remarks, and I am much obliged. I am all the more sorry that I must preface mine by taking issue with his hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow), who said in his opening speech in the Army debate last Thursday, bracketing me with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force:
Both these hon. Gentlemen have been known in the past to make statements calling for the withdrawal of troops from Ulster."—[Official Report, 6th May 1976; Vol. 901, c. 1493.]
The hon. Gentleman either did not check his source and therefore his authority for making that grave statement—if he had, he would have known that it was groundless—or he was less than careful and

perhaps even less than scrupulous in nevertheless going ahead and making it.
The right hon. Gentleman said today that of course we had differences over Northern Ireland, and indeed we did. There was rarely a time when he stood at the Dispatch Box as Minister of State for Defence when we did not have a difference over Northern Ireland. But when I wound up for the Opposition in the last Army debate under the Conservatives, I said:
It is possible to endorse and support the British Army, as we unhesitatingly do, and still despair occasionally, as I have done, of, say, the Minister of State for Defence. There is no inconsistency here and no betrayal."—[Official Report, 5th April 1973; Vol. 854, c. 730.]

Mr. Cranley Onslow: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, although he gave me no notice that he would refer to me.

Mr. Duffy: Yes, I did.

Mr. Onslow: I must repeat that the hon. Gentleman did not give me notice.

Mr. Duffy: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I did.

Mr. Onslow: Nevertheless, I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving way.
I have no hesitation in saying that I am sorry to have levelled against the Minister a charge that he has so effectively refuted.

Mr. Duffy: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I assure him that I was at pains to give him notice, but he will know that no matter how much care one may take in these matters it is not always possible to communicate with somebody. I tried to inform the hon. Gentleman yesterday that I would raise the matter today, and I took the precaution of writing to him at his home address. I did not merely put the conventional note on the board an hour before the debate but wrote to the hon. Gentleman the day before it.

Mr. Onslow: I have no intention of imputing to the hon. Gentleman anything other than honourable conduct, but no such message has reached me, though we have had an opportunity to exchange a note across the Table. I regret that the hon. Gentleman's intention was not


carried out. No matter whose fault it may be, I see no reason to go on further about the matter.

Mr. Duffy: I do. I want to say two more things. First, I got in touch with the hon. Gentleman at his home address because I understood that that was where his mail went every day. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman did not give me notice last Thursday that he would refer to me.
It is a great honour for me to be taking part in this debate today, my first as Navy Minister. I am very much looking forward to hearing the views of hon. Members on both sides of the House, many of whom I know have had long experience in naval matters and from whose contributions I expect to learn a great deal. I shall do my best, with the leave of the House, to answer at the end of the debate any specific questions that may arise, but for the moment I wish to concentrate on the broad outline of our defence policy in so far as it affects the Royal Navy.
I come first to the matter of the threat, which was raised by the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham today and by some of his hon. Friends at Question Time yesterday. Of course, the Government's prime duty in deciding how much of the country's resources to allocate to defence is to ensure that the measures taken are adequate to deal with the threat posed. The right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends have spoken about the Soviet maritime threat on previous occasions, and I am sure that his hon. Friends will do so again today. Against them, some of my hon. Friends below the Gangway have on other occasions argued, and may well repeat some of their arguments today, that the Soviet Fleet has not grown at all, and that on the contrary it is NATO which is going in for all the expansion.
Before we can undertake a sensible debate on this subject, it is incumbent on me to try to reconcile these contradictory views, to discuss the nature of the threat at sea and how, consequently, we should be prepared to counter it.
First of all, let us take the balance of ready forces in the Eastern Atlantic at the present time. As the House knows. this is one of the main areas on which we decided to concentrate our efforts

following the defence review. Its significance for the defence of the central front in Europe cannot be understated, since it is by sea—and therefore through this area—that most of the reinforcements from the United States would come in times of tension or war. It is also the gateway through which ships of the Soviet Northern Fleet enter the Atlantic. The 1976 Defence White Paper contains on page 6 a table which shows a superiority of Warsaw Pact over NATO forces of 2:1 in surface ships, 1·7:1 in submarines and 1·5:1 in combat aircraft.
Let me elaborate on this table, since it has been the source of some confusion in the past and I should like there to be no misunderstanding here today about what it represents. The title of the table is
The balance of ready forces in the Eastern Atlantic".
This means those units which are declared to be available to NATO for operations in the Eastern Atlantic, and on the Soviet side for operations by the Northern Fleet. I believe my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) was under some misconception about this in the recent defence debate. The comparison is between units available in the area, not based in the area, and the estimate is thus made regardless of the location of the bases from which the units might come.
Of course, counting the numbers of ships on each side is an over-simplified way of measuring the balance. Weapons systems and equipment must also be taken into account; but the odds I have quoted are a fair indication. Clearly, they are nothing to be complacent about, and indeed they have worsened somewhat since last year. But at the same time I would not subscribe to the despondent and alarmist noises which are frequently to be heard emanating from the other side of the House whenever defence is discussed.
I think hon. Members opposite are often inclined to forget that the United Kingdom is a member of an Alliance, and that therefore we do not stand alone. The fact is that the existing triad of forces maintained by the NATO Alliance—conventional, tactical nuclear, and strategic nuclear—should be sufficient to deter aggression by the Warsaw Pact, and to


maintain the credibility of our strategy of flexible response.
Moving on to the question of the growth in recent years of the Soviet Fleet, here again the picture is a complicated one. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central referred to it in his most interesting speech during the last defence debate. The numbers he gave at that time for the production of both NATO and Warsaw Pact major surface warships were largely correct. What he did not mention, however, was the production of Soviet submarines, which was of the order of 40 per cent. greater than NATO's in the years in question. Nor did he mention a very significant factor in the equation—the dependence of the West on the sea, for trade in times of peace, and for military reinforcements in war, a dependence which is not shared by the Soviet Union and her allies.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for giving way and for the way in which he has referred to my speech in the defence debate. I should like to take him up on the point he made about a 40 per cent. greater production of submarines by the Soviet fleet. Submarines in the Soviet Fleet are largely related to ballistic missile submarine forces. In terms of attack submarines, the Warsaw Pact has 81 and NATO has 80. Therefore, there is almost a precise balance between the two.

Mr. Duffy: Taking the most important factors in the operation and strength of the two fleets, and looking at the number of vessels produced and their capabilities, I am bound to take the view which I took, and it is a view by which I stand.
My hon. Friend also quoted the United States Secretary of Defence as a confirmation that the West need not worry about the growth in Soviet naval power. He omitted, however, to quote a later passage in the same document by Mr. Rumsfeld, which reads as follows.
Given the present trends in the Soviet Navy, maintenance of a favourable maritime balace will not be possible unless we modernise our fleet, maintain force levels and improve significantly the readiness of existing ships".
In other words, what Mr. Rumsfeld was saying in his statement—and I would go

along with him entirely—was that, although the Soviet Navy does not have command of the seas, the future balance depends on our continuing efforts.

Mr. Douglas Jay: Could the Under-Secretary give us one other figure which was not included in the White Paper—a comparison between the total number of Soviet submarines now and the number possessed by Germany at the beginning of the last two world wars?

Mr. Duffy: I will give my right hon. Friend the exact figures if I catch Mr. Speaker's eye later in the debate.
I remind hon. Gentlemen opposite that the Royal Navy's contribution to the defence of the Eastern Atlantic and Channel areas remained virtually undiminished following the defence review. We are maintaining the cruiser programme; we are going ahead with the development of the Sea Harrier; the nuclear-powered submarine programme remains intact. The core of our anti-submarine forces is thus being maintained. We are building new classes of destroyers and frigates and introducing new and powerful missile systems.
Our new construction programme is impressive both in quantity and quality; at present we are building one anti-submarine cruiser, three Fleet nuclear powered submarines, seven Type 42 destroyers, five Type 21 frigates and two. Type 22 frigates. The Royal Navy's first Type 22 frigate, HMS "Broadsword" is in fact being launched today at the Scotstoun shipyard of Yarrows. HMS "Broadsword" possesses a first-rate antisubmarine capability, and carries Exocet guided missiles, a Sea Wolf surface-to-air missile system and Lynx helicopters.

Mr. Mike Thomas: I hope that the Under-Secretary will forgive me for interrupting his speech, but could he say anything about the order for the through-deck cruiser which his Department is expected' to place soon with Swan Hunter, in my constituency?

Mr. Duffy: I am grateful for the inquiry. An announcement on this matter will be made very shortly.

Mr. Victor Goodhew: May I ask the Under-Secretary how it is.


that he, in his capacity as Minister responsible for the Royal Navy, shows such intelligent anxiety about the buildup of submarines in the Warsaw Pact countries when the Royal Air Force has had a cut of 25 per cent. in its Nimrod force, which is an essential part of the surveillance of submarine activity?

Mr. Duffy: I hope the hon. Member will accept that this is a matter for my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for Defence for the Royal Air Force. He will deal with it when we debate the RAF.

Mr. Michael Brotherton: Is the Under-Secretary saying that antisubmarine warfare is divided into compartments between the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy? Surely anti-submarine warfare is a joint maritime operation between the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force.

Mr. Duffy: I am not saying that at all. I advanced the proposition, which I thought was irrefutable, that this was a matter for my hon. Friend.
HMS "Broadsword" is the first Royal Navy ship to have an all-missile armament. Furthermore, this year we plan to order a second ASW cruiser, two Fleet nuclear powered submarines, a Type 42 destroyer and a Type 22 frigate. This provides conclusive evidence not only that we are doing our utmost to fulfil our NATO mission in the Eastern Atlantic and Channel areas, but that we are keeping the shipyards busy.
Perhaps the most outstanding of these new ships is the anti-submarine cruiser. We have three of these vessels in our programme and the first, HMS "Invincible", is due to enter service at the end of the decade. Her primary rôle will be the deployment of Sea King ASW helicopters, each with an ASW capability equivalent to that of a frigate. In addition, she will be armed with the Sea Dart area air defence missile system, will provide the command and control facilities essential for the operation of task groups, and will carry the Sea Harrier to disrupt the activities of the reconnaissance and target-indicating aircraft on which the Soviet long-range missile forces depend. The combination of these capabilities within a single hull is highly cost-effective; their provision in

a number of smaller hulls would be very much more expensive in both money and manpower.
Although the growth in the Soviet submarine fleet has been disturbing, the number of submarines that we contribute or are planning to contribute to NATO is itself not insignificant. By the end of this year we shall have nine nuclear-powered fleet submarines in service. Negotiations with the United States for the procurement of Sub Harpoon are nearing completion, and initial development work has already begun.
This shows that we are doing our utmost to realise the full potential of the nuclear-powered fleet for swift long-range attack on surface ships. Our decision to go ahead with the development of the Sea Skua helicopter-borne anti-ship missile underlines our determination to provide our forces with first-class weapons. This weapon gives the helicopter a strike capability that will enable our destroyers and frigates to hit targets far beyond the horizon. The wide fitting of the anti-ship weapon Exocet throughout the Fleet is another example of the improvements we are making to the quality of our ships.

Mr. Alan Clark: The Minister has mentioned Exocet. Earlier, when talking about the through-deck cruiser he extolled the virtues of the weapons systems on the vessel. Was not this vessel originally designed to be fitted with Exocet? Was that not cancelled, and will he explain why?

Mr. Duffy: Not without notice. Perhaps I may take that question up later if I catch your eye, Mr. Speaker.
I should like to say a word about mine countermeasures. The importance that we attach to this is illustrated by the orders we are placing for the new class of combined minehunter sweeper; our choice of the second builder for these ships, Yarrow's, on Clydeside, should create about 600 new jobs by the end of the decade.
As for our amphibious forces, following the defence review these will now consist of the Royal Marine brigade headquarters, three Commando groups together with their associated Wessex helicopters and Army support, and two assault ships, one of which will be kept


at immediate operational readiness. HMS "Hermes", which is being converted to the ASW rôle this year, will also retain a secondary rôle as a Commando ship.
The House will also be aware that, following consultations with our Allies, we have offered to assign the second and third Commando groups as well as the first to specific NATO plans and to train and equip one of these two groups and a small tactical brigade headquarters for operations in Norway in winter conditions. Commando forces continue to train frequently with units of the Royal Netherlands Marine Corps, with whom they would operate in war. This training and that of Royal Netherlands Marine Corps officers and men at Royal Marine establishments is of great mutual benefit.
I come now to the situation outside NATO. Hon. Members are well aware that as a result of the defence review we decided that priority must be given to those areas where the United Kingdom could make the most significant contribution to its security and that of the Alliance. We therefore concentrated our efforts in the maritime sphere on the Eastern Atlantic and Channel areas, the United Kingdom and its immediate approaches and our contribution to the NATO strategic nuclear deterrent. But, as I have said, the members of the Alliance depend on seaborne trade with countries beyond the NATO area for many vital commodities, and it is therefore inevitable that they will take an interest in developments anywhere in the world that might give a potential enemy the ability to threaten the shipping that carries that trade.
It is thus only prudent, as I am sure the House recognises, to undertake contingency planning for the protection of our shipping wherever it may be at risk. As we stated in the 1975 White Paper, the Royal Navy retains the ability to deploy world-wide in support of our interests. For example, a group of six warships and three Royal Fleet auxiliaries has just returned from a round-the-world deployment that provided many valuable opportunities for ships to train and exercise together and with other navies. Not only does this demonstrate our ability to deploy world-wide in defence of our own and allied interests; it provides a Royal

Navy presence from time to time in areas such as the Indian Ocean.
But hon. Members on the Opposition Benches should be under no illusion; we have no intention of reversing our defence review decisions. We are determined to bring Britain into the second half of the twentieth century, to face up to the fact that we can no longer fulfil commitments that were taken on in the heyday of British imperial power. We must concentrate on the priorities defined in the Defence Review and, above all, within the financial limitations imposed on us by our present economic position in the world.
I come now to the PESC exercise. The right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham has had a good deal to say about the recent cuts in defence expenditure that we made as part of the Government's 1975 Public Expenditure Review, but have he and his colleagues really thought through their position? Did they really believe that defence could remain exempt from the cuts in public spending that they themselves have been so vociferous in demanding? Certainly some of their number did not, as was illustrated by the Bow Group pamphlet "A Chancellor's Primer", which recommended among other things the cancellation of the ASW cruiser programme. I am sure that even the Government's most adamant critics on the Opposition Benches would accept that it is no good having a defence policy that ruins economically the nation that it seeks to protect militarily.

Mr. George Younger: Does the Minister agree that it is no use having a nation that has a marvellously sound economy but is unable to defend itself against attack?

Mr. Duffy: Not at all. That is why I was glad to be able to point out with the utmost care at least twice yesterday afternoon that our country is now a member of an alliance—a formidable alliance—and it makes a vital contribution, perhaps as much as 70 per cent. in the Eastern Atlantic and the Channel areas, in the sphere that we are debating today. That contribution has been left virtually undiminished both by the PESC review and the defence review. That point must be understood.

Sir Frederic Bennett: The Minister says that the concentration of criticism has come from the Conservative


Benches. Surely it is fair for him to admit that the recently widely publicised report of the Defence Sub-Committee, comprising equal representation of the two parties, also made criticism. Is he not being unfair in suggesting that all the Doubts and criticisms have come from the Opposition side of the House, when his own side was represented by 50 per cent in that report?

Mr. Duffy: I am well aware not only of that report but of the work done by that Committee. I did not need to spend very long at the Ministry of Defence to learn of the keen appreciation there for the Committee's work. The criticisms in the report, however, do not run by any means as far as many that have been advanced by other Opposition Members.

Sir F. Bennett: Does the Minister agree that they are worth mentioning?

Mr. Duffy: They are, indeed.
Given the need for reductions in Government expenditure, it was inevitable that defence should have to take a share of the savings. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State explained to the House in the defence debate on 31st March that we had preferred to make cuts in the "tail" where the defence review had left scope for further studies rather than in the "teeth" of the Armed Forces. We were determined that the front line and the effectiveness of our contribution to NATO should not be put at risk. That cannot be over-stressed.
In the case of the Navy, the Government had said in the 1975 Defence White Paper that the defence review reductions in the strength of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines would lead in due course to economies in shore support and training. We would aim to secure savings as quickly as was consistent with the needs of the fleet.
In order to identify the scope for economies in this area, we set in hand a comprehensive examination of the shore and support organisation. In the wake of the public expenditure review, several decisions have already been announced The 1976 White Paper names several naval support depots that will be closed and mentions that the level of support will be reduced in other ways. It goes on to say that our object is to secure further economies.
I have no illusions that savings in shore support can be obtained easily or painlessly. We are satisfied, however, that the measures we are taking will not put at risk the operations of the Fleet. The closures and reductions will require some readjustments at the naval bases, in our supply and transport organisation, Fleet Air Arm support and in port services, but we shall be watching to ensure that the traditional high standards of service to the Fleet are not sacrificed in the search for economies.
In the defence review, we had already planned a saving of substantial numbers of civilian jobs in the naval area, largely as a result of the decisions to withdraw naval forces from overseas and to reduce Royal Fleet auxiliary numbers. Most of this reduction involved locally-engaged civilians abroad. At home, the reductions we have now announced total about 1,500 civilian posts in the naval support area, on top of the reductions already identified in the Defence Review. Some further savings are being considered.
The Ministry of Defence is a major employer of civilians, and civilians have always played a vital rôle in support of the Fleet. The Royal Navy owes a great debt to them. It is therefore a painful business to have to close naval support establishments and declare redundancies. The measures will be phased over a period, and we shall do all that we can, as good employers, to ensure that the number of redundancies is kept to the minimum possible by offering alternative jobs in the Ministry or elsewhere in the public service, wherever practicable. Discussions on these aspects are now being held with the staff associations and trade unions.
The right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham asked about the offshore tapestry. Perhaps I may take up this point later.
I should like now to turn to the United Nations Law of the Sea Conference, the latest session of which has just finished in New York. Although this is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, I think I may be allowed to express independently the hope that general agreement will be reached on all the subjects under discussion. For it


is only by reaching—and keeping to—international agreements that states can hope to avoid damaging conflicts of the kind we are now experiencing with Iceland.

Mr. James Johnson: I have just re-received a message from Hull that the Icelandic coastguard gunboat "Aegir" has fired a shot across the bow of the Hull trawler "Primella" of Marrs Limited and has prepared a boarding party. Does my hon. Friend know anything about this incident, and is there anything he can do about it?

Mr. Duffy: The "Primella" has been fishing off the west coast of Iceland, several hundred miles from the designated fishing area. It is reported that the "Aegir" has fired a shot across its bows and has put a boarding party in the water. The "Primella" is still steering south and a Nimrod is in the area. We are urgently considering what further action is necessary. If I can give the House any further information later I shall do so.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: Can the hon. Gentleman clarify what he said about the boarding party? Is it in the water or has it boarded?

Mr. Duffy: It is in the water. If I can make a further statement later I shall be glad to do so.
The Royal Navy, supported by the RAF, continues to provide protection for our trawlers fishing legally on the high seas off Iceland. Despite the continual harassment by the Icelandic gunboats, their dangerous tactics and close manoeuvrings resulting in collisions, and sometimes even apparently deliberate rammings, protection has overall been effective. No trawlers have been arrested, and there have been long periods with almost no warp cuttings.
For the first time towards the end of April the Icelanders deployed as many as six gunboats, and, because of this and favourable weather conditions, did achieve some success. As from Monday of this week, the level of protection was increased by the deployment of two more frigates, bringing the total to six. Despite a period of intense harassment last Thursday when the increased level

of protection was announced and eight collisions ensued, only one warp was cut; none has been cut since Thursday, despite further harassment.
But as my right hon. Friend said in the House last week, a balance has to be struck in providing protection—a balance between preserving continuity of fishing and the lives of the men in ships, both British and Icelandic. Clearly the former cannot be given priority regardless of the consequences. Secondly, we have to remember that Iceland is a valuable ally in NATO; and that is why we seek an amicable and speedy end to this dispute.
In the meantime we shall continue to protect the lives and livelihoods of our fishermen, and I am sure the whole House will join me in paying tribute both to them and to the Royal Navy for the good sense and restraint all have shown in carrying out their difficult tasks.
I should like to pay a special tribute —and I know hon. Members on both sides of the House will wish to join me —to the men and women of my old service, the Royal Navy, to the Royal Marines, the Women's Royal Naval Service, and the Queen Alexandra's Royal Naval Nursing Service for the part they play in serving the nation so selflessly, often in dangerous circumstances. In particular, I should mention those who have served or are serving with such courage in Northern Ireland—42 Commando are currently in Belfast and I hope to visit them next week—and those who mount search and rescue operations, often with little regard to their own personal safety, to assist those in distress.
I come to my final remarks. If they are of a more personal nature than those that have gone before, I hope that the House will bear with me.
The Royal Navy is sometimes depicted as traditional, and even conservative. I cannot accept that either trait is carried to excess in the light of my wartime service in, and subsequent exposure to, the Navy. Prior to joining the Home Fleet as a seaman in 1940, I spent two days in a depot ship in Scapa Flow—the old "Iron Duke" Jellicoe's First World War flagship. By the end of the war I had moved through such growth areas as Coastal Forces and the Fleet Air Arm. My duties had ranged from scrubbing decks, painting ship and peeling potatoes


on the lower deck of a battle cruiser to navigation responsibilities in Coastal Forces, flying duties in the Fleet Air Arm, service afloat in converted, and, subsequently, the very latest, Fleet carriers, and, finally, the command of the Navy School of Air Radar.
In terms of naval technology, that latter activity represented a greater advance on the old "Iron Duke"—where I started afloat—than the "Iron Duke" on Nelson's "Victory".
The Navy has undergone a further revolution since World Wars I and II. As the oceans become both a greater source of and a greater medium for conflict, a new array of technology for war at sea is being introduced. The British Navy stands, as usual, on the very frontier of current development.
Nothing strikes me more during my visit to the Fleet nowadays than the new direction of naval doctrine and strategy and their impressive reflection in the most sophisticated equipment.
Nothing surprises me less, however, than the success with which the Navy has adapted yet again to a changing milieu, and preserved yet again its renowned combat effectiveness.
The Navy would say the credit lies largely with the workers in industry who provide the Fleet with its hulls, equipment and other provisions. And, unquestionably, sight must not be lost of the current MOD programme, which occupies about 20,000 shipyard workers, and the planned programme which should suffice to maintain the three specialist warship builders—namely, Vickers, Yarrows and Vosper-Thorneycroft. I pay tribute to them through the hon. Members on both sides of the House who represent them in this House.

Dr. Alan Glyn: I revert to the question of the boarding party, in which I think the whole House is interested. I think that the House would like to know who gives the order to repel a boarding party. Is it the Minister, or the person in charge in the area in which the incident takes place?

Mr. Duffy: I said that I would try to make a further statement on this matter at a later stage, including the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised.
I was paying a tribute to workers in industry who provide the Navy with its hulls, equipment and other provisions. I also pay tribute to the vital contribution of the Royal dockyards, which provide for the refitting of warships as well as other specialist facilities.
My personal experience, however—and my mind's eye ranges from my first ship HMS "Repulse", to the first of our new class of Type 42 destroyers, HMS "Sheffield", in which the city I represent takes great pride—leaves me in no doubt that the major credit for the continued successful adaptation of the Navy to an ever-quickening pace of change, despite the buffeting to morale inseparable from such a transitory process, must go to its personnel.
Their demanding tasks require of officers and men at all levels yet higher and higher skills. They are not content to rest on their conventional values, distinctive and enduring though they are. They are as conscious as any other body of men and women in our society of the importance of yet higher and higher standards. That is the hallmark of the true professional.
The Navy is therefore on the move, and in that sense points the way in an entirely appealing and wholesome direction.

5.5 p.m.

Mr. Robert Banks: I am most grateful for this early opportunity to. speak in the debate. I feel it appropriate to pay recognition to the Under-Secretary of State for his first major contribution from the Dispatch Box. I am sure that the House has listened to his speech with considerable interest. It is comforting for many of my hon. Friends and I to know of the wide and historic experience that the hon. Gentleman brings to the office that he now holds. We were moved by the sentiments and feelings that he has for the Royal Navy. Surely that can lead only to a close understanding of the problems that the Royal Navy faces.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the figures in the White Paper and contrived, with what I would term as an element of fantasy, to show that the figures are not as one would read them. In effect, he was saying that the Russian forces are not as strong as we would suppose. He


went on to dab whitewash over the growth of the Russian Navy—a growth that has been accepted and spoken of by many eminent members of the Armed Forces. I refer in particular to Admiral Lewin, who was until recently the Supreme Allied Commander, North Atlantic. The hon. Gentleman brushed aside the increase in expenditure that the United States has appropriated to its defence budget and ignored the growth in expenditure that the French Government have introduced to ensure that their level of defences is increased.
These increases have been brought about by the belief of those nations that we face a growing threat from Soviet Russia. Only recently there was a report that Russia is spending 42 per cent. more on armaments than had been supposed by the West. I contradict and refute what the hon. Gentleman has said, and reinforce the eloquent words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mr. Gilmour).
As the Under-Secretary of State has said, we are party to an alliance. It is a vitally important and powerful alliance. With its combined navies the NATO Alliance presents a powerful force against Soviet operations. However, we as a nation must contain a proper balance within our own Royal Navy. We may at any time face a conventional situation with which, for various reasons, we alone will have to deal.
I address myself to a specific area that I feel needs special emphasis. I refer to the threat of mines. We rely on the freedom of movement that our ships enjoy, and must have, from our harbours and estuaries, and along our sea routes. We are by nature a trading nation. We have a long coastline and many harbours and other areas to protect. The Soviet Navy has a large capacity for laying mines. I do not know what the estimates of its capacity are, and I appreciate that they are difficult to formulate, but it would be unwise of us to ignore the fact that the Soviet capability is considerable.
The Ministry of Defence's evidence to the Expenditure Committee drew attention to the threat of mines in the Clyde area, and the effect that they would have on our nuclear submarines. As

the Royal Navy is one of the navies of NATO, that factor has to be taken into account overall. However, we would have to deal with local mining threats, and it is the task of sweeping mines that would essentially fall on the Royal Navy.
Essentially, our operation must be to prevent the laying of mines by either sea or air. We must be assured by the Minister that we have sufficient forces to to do that. I do not believe that we have sufficient forces. This is one of the great weaknesses of the Royal Navy.
We need an assessment of the key areas which would be selected for blockading by mines and which would have to be protected. Therefore, we depend on ships to form a screen of protection against a sea invasion for mine laying. Have we sufficient ships to undertake that task? Likewise, we depend on air cover to prevent mines being laid from the air. That is another matter of concern.
When I talk of mine sweeping, I refer also to mine-hunting—mine counter measures. What is our minesweeping capability? The French Navy has 46 ships available for coastal and inshore mine-sweeping operations. The Federal Republic of Germany has 57 ships. Holland has 43 ships. The United Kingdom, which has the longest coastline of all, has 45 ships according to Jane's "Fighting Ships", 37 ships according to the White Paper, 34 ships according to an Answer given by the Minister on 29th March, and 33 ships according to a report in the Daily Telegraph a short time ago. Will the Minister clarify this matter in his winding-up speech? Either way—whether it be 45, 33 or some other number of ships—the majority of those ships were built between 1953 and 1960. Replacement of many of those ships is becoming a matter of great urgency. It is a weakness which draws attention to the mine threat which could be posed by Russia.
How many minesweepers are likely to be ordered, when will attention be given to this matter, and when will the orders be placed? I regard this as a critically serious matter.
New ways must be discovered of finding and destroying mines. The relevant section in the Second Report of the


Expenditure Committee refers to the feasibility study stage of hovercraft in mine counter-measures. It is about time that the Ministry of Defence got on with the job of testing, in a practical way, the use of hovercraft for detecting and destroying mines. I understand that a hovercraft was purchased in 1972. We are now in 1976, four years later, and the hovercraft has been well and truly tested as a sea vehicle. I believe that it is time that experiments were carried out in the direction which I have indicated.
It would be possible to use the LCTs —tank landing craft—which are currently in use with the Army's Corps of Transport. They are highly magnetic vessels. Therefore, they have mine appeal as a result. They are shallow draughted and could act as mother ships in conjunction with hovercraft. I believe that idea should be considered.
It is important to reassess the mine threat in the light of our available task forces. The reservists played a valuable part during the last war in sweeping mines. I believe that the reservists today can play an equally vital part in running minesweeping operations in the event of a lesser or greater emergency. However, the reservists must be encouraged to improve their operational skills. I greatly regret that the number of minesweepers attached to the reserves, under the review, was reduced from 11 to six. I should like an assurance that the reservists will be given effective training in the Fleet as they are now unable to obtain a sufficient number of training billets in their own coastal minesweepers. Only by giving reservists proper and efficient training and a task to do can we draw them into the service. I hope that encouragement will be given to recruit and to the work which reservists have to do.
An important part of a reservist's job is operational capability. He must be closely connected with what is going on in the Royal Navy and to be able to undertake certain tasks when a situation calls for them.
The Secretary of State, opening the defence debate on 31st March, spoke rather grandly, I thought, of the Regular Forces being supplemented by 300,000 civilians and 250,000 reservists. The Royal Navy and Royal Marine Reserves amount to 27,800, but they comprise the Royal Navy and Royal Marine Regular

reserves, the retired and emergency list of officers, the Royal Fleet Reserve and the Royal Navy and Royal Marine pensioners. It is no use talking about reserves in these grand global figures. It is the reservists, trained and able to perform tasks at short notice, who are important and valuable to our forces.
I turn now to consider the rôle of the small ships in the Royal Navy. We have a mixture of ships, sizes, capabilities and roles which they have to play. We appear to lack a coherent plan or policy on their use or pattern of action. For instance, we have four large patrol craft of the Kingfisher class. Three are under construction now. HMS "Kingfisher" is in service, I understand. The task of the Kingfisher class vessels is coastal fishery protection.
We have one fast attack craft, three fast training boats, and five new Island class vessels are being built for offshore surveillance and protection of oil rigs. Presumably they are designed to meet the situation which the Royal Navy is now meeting with some difficulty, because of the ships which are being used, in the cod war. The Island class is a trawler type of vessel. Will the Minister clarify the position as to the designation of these vessels, because we have "ship", "craft", "boat" and "vessel"? I am not entirely sure about the reasons for these different terms.
The characteristics of the Island class are somewhat dull. These vessels are certainly slow, having a maximum speed of 16 knots. They are equipped with only one Bofors gun. I should describe them as Donkey class ships.
The Ocean class tug is similar in size. It has a smaller amount of accommodation for the crew, but that could be enlarged. It is sturdy, reliable and useful for towing. Three Ocean class tugs were recently built, at a cost of over £2 million each. Repeat orders would no doubt be greatly welcomed by the Beverley shipyard in Yorkshire.
The new class of Island class ship is similar, and costs nearly £3 million. I cannot see why this special class of ship has been constructed when an honest-to-goodness Ocean class tug would do the job just as well with the ability to tow into the bargain.
What are we to do in this situation? I believe that the small ship in the Royal


Navy has an important part to play. I ask the Under-Secretary to consider the production of a multi-purpose, versatile small ship that could be used in the future, perhaps as the old corvette vessels which he may well recall from his naval experience. They should be adapted to combine the purposes of oil rig protection, fishery protection—in the cod war sense—patrolling, convoy escort and surveillance.
Such a new class might well have characteristics similar to those of the Russian Nanuchka class. This ship is 196 metres in length, with a good beam, to ride difficult seas. It carries an interesting armament: six surface ship-to-ship missiles; a twin ship-to-air missile system; anti-submarine weapons; and two antiaircraft 57 mm guns. She has a speed of 32 knots. She is a useful lethal small ship, adaptable to many uses.
I should like to see our design, however, somewhat changed from that which I have just described, to perform more of an anti-submarine rôle, to minimise the rôle of an anti-aircraft weapons system and to provide a helicopter platform. The helicopter carried by such a small vessel would provide a wide-ranging capability for mine detection, submarine detection and, indeed, missile attack.
Here is a case for a ship packed with armaments, not cheap, perhaps, but attractive for its versatility and performance, and value for money. I hope that the Miniser will take particular account of that. Such a ship would perform a very useful and valuable task in convoy escort work and in screen protection against a mining threat from minelaying vessels of, for instance, the Soviet Navy. Her speed would give her versatility and would give us a far greater range of coverage. I would imagine that such a ship would perform some of the tasks that the old Hunt class destroyers did during the war. They were largely responsible for the saving of many of the convoys coming across the Atlantic. It is the small ship that also provides the Navy with the training opportunities for young officers and men to work in a confined ship with responsibilities and an opportunity of getting some action.
I hope that the Minister will not only take real notice of what is said in the Chamber but will read carefully—I am

sure that he has done so already—the reports of the Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee and its criticisms, and the points to which it draws attention. It is important that the House takes account of what is said by people such as those who are members of that Committee, from both sides of the House. Parliament will be nothing unless it takes account of what is said and the advice it is given.

5.23 p.m.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: The hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) paid a very nice tribute to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy on his debut. I should like to add to that tribute, from the Government side of the House.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary mentioned the tremendous technological changes that take place in the Navy—and my word, they are tremendous. I know from experience that the Navy that I came to know when I became a Minister was totally different from the Navy in which I served during the war. It is a long time since I had any responsibility for the Navy, but I am certain that the whole thing has changed again and that I am totally out of date. However, one thing does not change, and that is the feel of the Navy. It was quite obvious from my hon. Friend's concluding remarks that he has that feel. I am sure that he will find his job of being the political head of the Navy and looking after that great Service one of the most absorbing and satisfying jobs that a politician can have. I only hope that it does not spoil him for other jobs that he may have in years to come.
The hon. Member for Harrogate—it is rather nice to see so many Yorkshire Members present for the debate—asked my hon. Friend some questions about mines. He asked in particular about the use of hovercraft in mine countermeasures. He suggested that the evaluations of hovercraft began in 1972 and should by now be complete. I can tell him that they began rather earlier than that. They were certainly beginning as long ago as 1966. I fully agree with him that it is about time that we knew whether hovercraft can be used not only for mine counter-measures but as fast patrol craft and so on. One of the


problems is seaworthiness. I should like to know to what extent that problem has been overcome. I shall listen to the reply on that point with great interest.
I want to deal with only one point, which is a major point at present. That is the question raised by the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mr. Gilmour) about the protection of our supplies of North Sea oil. This is obviously a major British interest. Equally obvious, it is fairly vulnerable. It is vulnerable in outright war and even in periods of comparative peace. It is vulnerable from the air, from surface attack from the sea, from submarine attack and from attack from land. The threat can come not only from an openly declared enemy but from the covert guerrilla saboteur who is such a curse to the peace of the world at present.
The protection of this major interest calls for the deployment of a very wide range of defences and services—air-sea rescue, anti-pollution, aircraft, submarines, surface ships and land-based guards. I have to tell my hon. Friend that so far I am not satisfied that this defence is being properly organised. At least five Government Departments are involved—the Department of the Environment, the Home Office, the Department of Trade, the Department of Energy and the Ministry of Defence. As I understand it, these Departments are very loosely coordinated by an interdepartmental committee which is presided over, with immense self-satisfaction, by some official in the old Board of Trade, or the Department of Trade as it is now. The Navy, in the offing, is mumbling about not treading on the corns of the civil power. While this going on, no one seems to know whether the defences of our installations at sea and ashore are in the care of the coast guards or the Chief Constable of Aberdeen or assorted groups of Boy Scouts. No Minister is directly and solely responsible for the organising of the defences of this vital concern.
What I believe is necessary—this is not the first time I have said it—is the creation of a special task force. Every part of defence—in the air, on the sea, submarine and on land—providing protection against the elements as well as against man, can be done by the Royal Navy or by the Royal Marines as part of their regular training and experience.
Such a task force should be an integral part of the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines and should be under a new command. I would suggest that the Admiral in charge of it might be called the "Commander-in-Chief of Celtic Seas" and that the task force should have at its disposal an intelligence network which is in constant touch, as far as possible, with the sort of guerrilla groups throughout the world whose malice may at any lime threaten these supplies. Here, in this House, one Minister, and one Minister alone, must be responsible, and that is clearly the Secretary of State for Defence.
I am sorry to go on about this, but from the information we have so far extracted from the Government I do not believe that the defence of this vital British interest is being properly and effectively organised. That means that our oil supplies are vulnerable and are seriously at risk. Yet they are a major interest. I hope that my hon. Friend will deal with this point at some length when he comes to reply. Although there are many important considerations to which the Secretary of State for Defence must be continually applying his mind. the proper organisation of the protection of our oil supplies should be the top priority of the Ministry of Defence.

5.33 p.m.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: It is a pleasure for me to follow not only an ex-First Lord of the Admiralty, whose affection for the Navy is well known and who is very much respected by the Navy; but also the new First Lord of the Admiralty, and I add to the welcome already given to him. His knowledge and background of naval service will be of enormous help to him in his job. It was typical of his modest character that he put his own qualifications at the end of his speech rather than hoisting his colours before he started.
The Navy is in good heart—it always is—but I shall make one fundamental point today, and that is that it is too damned small.
The Minister referred to HMS "Iron Duke" and technical developments. It is interesting that HMS "Iron Duke" had all the guns to blow anything which floated out of the water, but no information and the poor people standing on


the bridge with vibrating binoculars did not know whether the smoke on the horizon was friend or foe. But nowadays we have all the information coming in, from long-range radar and sonar, but very little punch to do anything about it.
I shall be extremely topical, but I hope not to strike too jarring a note. It was a bit odd to hear the answer which the Minister gave about the Icelandic boarding party. I think he should have been able to give a clear-cut answer about who is responsible for repelling boarders. "Repel boarders" is one of the oldest cries in the Royal Navy. I should like to think that if a set of Icelandic fingers came across the gunwale. the skipper would say "Punch him on the nose, Jock" not "Let us hang on a minute while I ring up the Ministry". The man on the spot must take the decision. This is beyond argument. If any news comes through about this incident, would it be in order for the House to be given that information right away so that we could be up to date? It seems to me that this is very close to what we are trying to discuss today.
These Service debates should not be about minor problems of policy or about details of weapons or equipment or ship design or even personnel problems. I shall try not to nit-pick but be reasonably constructive. When it comes to equipment, we have a very good naval staff to deal with these problems and it is difficult for the House of Commons to know the whole picture about weapons or equipment.
I am extremely glad that recruiting is good and that we have not heard moans and groans about recruiting. I am satisfied that the welfare of naval personnel is extremely well taken care of. My outstanding impression, when re-visiting ships and establishments—as an old sweat myself—is that the high standards are still maintained and that the men are fit and clean and, above all, interested. They know that they are doing a really useful job. These are the underlying factors in morale, which seems to be excellent.
The question which we ought to discuss in these Service debates is whether enough of the nation's resources are being allocated for defence purposes. My

assessment is that they are not. Successive cuts since 1966, under successive Governments, have left all three Services under strength. I welcome recent forthright speeches of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition pointing out the threat posed by continual increases in Soviet strength, particularly at sea. She seems to have latched on to this very well.
However, we have not yet heard my own party say that defence spending has to be increased. I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mr. Gilmour) is not here to hear this, because the fact is that we cannot go on saying that we ought to have this or that, or the other, without having the guts to say that defence spending has to be increased. That is what has to happen.
The purpose of this increased spending must be clear. It is not to try to match Soviet strength gun for gun, tank for tank or ship for ship, nor is it to wage war against the Russians. Of course we cannot wage war against them single-handed. This increase is for good reasons all the same. First, it is to retain the viability and cohesion of the NATO Alliance on which our ultimate safety depends. Secondly, it is to prevent war, not to wage war. Thirdly, it is to make sure that British interests are properly protected in conditions below the threshold of declared war.
This, I believe, covers the whole scenario from peace with on-going détente, through a situation where the Soviet Union runs rings around us, or seems to do so because of its increasing influence overseas, to circumstances in which relative strengths tempt the Soviets to exert harassment or blockades upon our merchant shipping.
The White Paper neglects certain aspects of these problems. I believe that, the Government's policy of concentrating exclusively on the NATO area is wrong to the extent that it is based on the assumption that there is no threat outside the NATO area. It is grotesque to say that a submarine five miles north of the Tropic of Cancer is a danger but that five miles south of the Tropic of Cancer it is not. British interests are neglected by this


policy, and I shall state some of them in outline.
First and foremost is the protection of British merchant shipping, for which the Cape route is one of the focal points. In this context, the unilateral abrogation of the Simonstown Agreement is absurd, because it was a joint agreement entirely in our favour. We got a great deal out of it. The Silvermine headquarters—the hon. Gentleman will know what I am talking about—is very valuable indeed to us, because the first essential for the prevention of war is to have surveillance, to know what one's potential foes are up to.
It is equally deplorable that there has been a cessation of joint Royal Navy-South African Navy exercises. I understand—I hope I am wrong—that there are now serious shortcomings in the communications between Simonstown and the United Kingdom, due to the withdrawal of the radio facilities in Mauritius, as mentioned in the White Paper.
It is also rather petty that there should be—as there appears to have been—a cessation of visits by Royal Navy ships to South African ports, because the South Africans have been most generous in their hospitality throughout the centuries. I have enjoyed much of it, as have many others. They are wonderful people, and the Cape is still a very good place at which to call. We all understand the politics behind the decision, but I believe that the United Kingdom, instead of moralising, has a duty to explain patiently to the black African States, which do not always have a great maritime comprehension because that has not been their history—and particularly in the context of Angola and Mozambique—that their new-found and valued independence, which we all welcome, depends upon the security of the trade routes around the continent in which they happen to be located.
Another sector of neglect of British interests is the withdrawal from the Five-Power arrangement in South-East Asia. This leaves Singapore, the epicentre of the eastern hemisphere without effective British representation. It is also poor economy to withdraw HMS "Chichester" from Hong Kong, where our position entirely depends on the confidence

of a very overcrowded population. Surely it is not too much to have one frigate there to maintain that confidence.
The northern flank of NATO has been mentioned, particularly by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. Mallalieu). Is the reconnaisance sufficient over this area? Have we adequate means of knowing what is happening there?
The hon. Member for Huddersfield, East suggested a special command for the defence of our oil installations. I am not sure that I want such a special command. One gets into mix-ups if one has functional commands and area commands. I think that the job could well be done by the area commander, provided that he is given the right ships and aircraft.
On the southern flank of NATO, in the Mediterranean, there is the grotesque arrangement by which we are withdrawing, for the first time in centuries, from the Merditerranean. The threat has not evaporated. It is still there. It is merely another case of the Government trying to cut their coat according to the cloth they wish to buy. The threat is there. We have seen it in Cyprus and in the difficulties between Greece and Turkey, and potentially of course in Yugoslavia. The Government are going ahead with the withdrawal of the Nimrods and all other operational aircraft from Cyprus. Akrotiri, until recently the busiest operational station of the Royal Air Force, now stands silent.
I am not sure whether the Minister has just received some further news about the boarding party. If he has. shall be glad to give way to him.
As the hon. Gentleman is not rising, I return to the subject of the Nimrods. He said that they were not his affair but a matter for his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Royal Air Force. He, with his Fleet Air Arm background, knows better than that.

Mr. Duffy: indicated assent.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Yes, of course the hon. Gentleman does. What the Nimrods do and report is essential to the Royal Navy. The hon. Gentleman and I learnt that lesson bitterly during the


war. In any case, we now have an integrated Ministry of Defence, so a Minister in it cannot step aside and duck an issue such as that.

Mr. Julian Critchley: May I reinforce my hon. and gallant Friend's point about the Nimrods? I went to Naples a fortnight ago and saw the Allied Commander-in-Chief. He said that the Nimrods flying from Malta were responsible for over 30 per cent. of submarine sightings and he was anxious because they had been withdrawn.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reinforcing my point.
Another neglected area is the support of British exports and trade by way of selling ships and equipment overseas. This is perhaps much less delicate ground in the naval context than it is in the case of ground equipment. I am delighted to congratulate the Government on going ahead with HMS "Invincible" and the Harrier programme. Some of us have been nagging at successive Ministers for long enough about that. Will the hon. Gentleman bring us up to date about these programmes, particularly the Harrier development? That aircraft is God's gift to naval aviation, as he will understand, and we must go ahead fast with it if we are to get the exports which are necessary for obvious reasons and also so that friendly countries can make a contribution to the defence of the trade routes.
Another sector which I feel is neglected, and has been neglected by successive Governments, is the Hydrographic Service. There have been debates in Parliament recently about it. I am not sure whether everyone realises why it is necessary that the service should be increased. It is needed militarily for the operation of nuclear submarines which dive far deeper than the previous generation of submarines. It is also needed for giant tankers and bulk carriers and for towing the exploration rigs out to the oilfields.
Hydrography has lapsed not in its techniques but in the extent to which we can deploy forces. The service has a worldwide reputation and we should extend it very largely. I suggest that we should hire out our hydrographic sur-

vey ships—men, expertise and the lot—on an agency basis throughout the world. That would help to solve certain problems affecting the third world countries, which cannot do these technical surveys for themselves, and it would make a contribution to the general background for the Law of the Sea Conference.
Another problem which is suffering neglect is that of the Merchant Navy. We see British ships, with British sailors carrying British goods on their voyages around the world, having to operate under some extraordinary, outlandish flags of convenience. It is wrong, and I was delighted to hear the Prime Minister tell me yesterday that he will look into the problem. I ask the Under-Secretary of State to realise that the two problems of the Royal Navy and the Merchant Navy are geared together and I ask him to support those of us who wish the Prime Minister to set up a study into the broad problem of the Merchant Navy.
Perhaps I may sum up by saying that we in Europe must have the use of sea routes to survive in war. The Soviet Union has no such need. That is why the present balance gives us much concern. I agreed with the Minister's peroration—I think that he has got the message—relating to merchant shipping and its protection. He said that the Royal Navy had the capacity to deploy world-wide. I agree with him—but not in the numbers required.
I wish to give the House a brief progress report on HMS "Belfast". I hope that that will be in order. [HON. MEMBERS "Hear, hear."] HMS "Belfast" was given to the "Belfast" Trust by the Navy Minister of the day almost exactly five years ago this week. It is right that the House should have a brief summary of how the scheme is progressing.
In essence, it is succeeding beyond the wildest expectations of the trustees. We have had well over 1½ million visitors on board the ship, largely from the younger age group. We have a total of 8,000 schools on our mailing lists to which we send our brochures. Visitors come in droves at the weekends, in school holidays and on other occasions. We give special rates to parties of young people who come on board to find out what life in the Navy is all about.
There are masses of things for them to see on board HMS "Belfast". The turrets are preserved exactly as they were, also the bridge, the steering position, the mess decks, the hammocks, the ditty boxes and all the rest of it. Indeed, the Ministry has provided an up-to-date mess deck so that young people can see what life is like in the Navy of today. Engine and boiler rooms are open and they have been described as examples of marine archaeology.
On board the ship are 25 staff, who are all naval pensioners and whose duty is to show people round, to pick up old ladies who fall down ladders, and to tell stirring stories of what goes on at sea. We have a ferry service from Tower Pier. The Trustees invite the Minister in his new capacity to visit us to see what we are doing.
On the subject of expenses, it is a slightly more difficult problem. We have recently made an appeal for funds and have had some generous support from the City of London, and also from various firms and individuals in Hong Kong. It will be remembered that in past years HMS "Belfast" had close connections with Hong Kong.
I hope that from my brief progress report it will be seen that the HMS "Belfast" Trust has been able to make some contribution towards giving the younger generation a vital understanding of the importance of maritime policy to the British people—in the future as well as in the past. We hope that HMS "Belfast" will come to be thought of as "the HMS Victory of the steam age".

5.54 p.m.

Mr. John Cronin: I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House were glad to have a report on HMS "Belfast" from the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles). Those who have visited it must feel considerable gratitude for the work that he and his fellow trustees have done. [HON. MEMBERS "Hear, hear."] The ship is not only a stimulus to youth but a helpful tourist attraction as well as being a pleasurable amenity for Londoners.
I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy on his elevation to ministerial office. I am sure that with his experience and background and

the immense amount of work that he has put in on defence matters, his appointment will be beneficial to the House and to the Royal Navy.
I wish to confine my speech to three points. First, I shall presume to give my hon. Friend some advice about the cod war, secondly, agreeing with my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. Mallalieu), I shall suggest that there should be some protection for oil rigs, and, thirdly, I shall suggest to the Opposition that they should take a more balanced view of the Russian naval threat.
I turn first to the cod war. Hon. Members on both sides of the House must express appreciation for the hard work and excellent seamanship on the part of the frigates that are protecting our trawlers. They are carrying out a fine job. However, I am inclined to wonder whether they are somewhat hampered by the orders they receive from the Ministry of Defence. The present situation is that an Icelandic gunboat can approach a Royal Navy frigate, swing its stern into the frigate's side, and cut a hole in the ship. That has happened on numerous occasions, and obviously such action, when carried out with apparent impunity, is not conducive to morale in the Royal Navy.
I have spoken to a number of Royal Naval officers on the subject and they feel upset about the situation. They certainly feel restricted in what they can do to prevent these rammings. It is hardly satisfactory for the prestige of the Royal Navy that frigates should be swiped at in this manner by the rear ends of gunboats. It is also not satisfactory for the prestige of this country that this should happen with impunity to the Royal Navy. I suggest that the question of prestige is of some importance.
I should like the Minister to consider what counter-measures should be taken. I understand that there are three forms of counter-measure that can be employed. The first is that frigates could be equipped with some form of projecting steel beams which would cause the gunboats to damage themselves if they attempted a ramming. I regard that as a cumbersome and unsatisfactory idea.
I also understand that frigates could manoeuvre in pairs so that when one frigate is rammed the other would be in


a position to cause considerable danger to the ramming gunboat. But even that solution presents dangers. I suggest that something more could be done than the present system in which the captains of the frigates appeal to the gunboat captains over loudhailers. From what I have seen on television programmes, it all sounds somewhat unimpressive.
I suggest that the gunboat captains should be told on the loudhailer that if they attempt to ram Royal Naval vessels they will be the recipients of a solid shot. I emphasise that it should be a solid shot because a high explosive shot would do serious damage and cause casualties, and possibly loss of life. But a solid shot directed at a gunboat would probably make a nasty hole in it and probably cause no injury at all. If the gunboat captains were given to understand that if they rammed a frigate they would immediately receive a solid shot in a non-vital part of their ship, that surely would be a deterrent to them in carrying out that course of action—action which is contrary to the law of the sea and which diminishes the prestige of the Royal Navy. I hope that the Minister will consider this proposal.
We now have 22 platforms, 27 more under construction and 25 oil rigs in our coastal waters. It is doubtful whether enough has been done for their protection. I am not talking about direct attacks by aircraft or surface ships because these would be acts of war which would put the matter in an altogether different category. These oil rigs are particularly vulnerable to guerrilla activities and to limited war operations. For example, on 25th August 1975 anonymous telephone callers claimed that underwater charges had been fitted to gas production platforms in the Hewett Field just off the coast of Norfolk. As a result, three of the platforms were evacuated, a ship of the Royal Navy had to be in attendance and a naval helicopter had to go to the platform. A skilled naval diving team had to put in an appearance. These things alone, plus the loss of production, certainly caused the loss to this country of several hundred thousand pounds. This was achieved for the price of a couple of telephone calls.
This incident gives some indication of the vulnerability of these rigs. That was

merely a hoax. But it would be perfectly possible for guerrilla groups to lower a charge with a delayed action fuse on to the seabed near an oil rig from some small vessel at night. A 350-kilogramme ground mine would do the job effectively, if waterproof and fitted with a fuse. A couple of those cost £5,000. A guerrilla group could do enormous damage for a small amount of money.
During the past 20 years, 60 midget submarines have been built and sold, mostly to undisclosed customers. Under circumstances of limited war those midget submarines could cause considerable damage to our offshore installations. I hope that the Under-Secretary will give some thought to these issues.
I turn to right hon. and hon. Members on the Conservative Benches. They have pointed out, reasonably, that there has been an enormous increase in Soviet naval power. There is no doubt about that. Since 1965 the Soviet Union has built 800 ships. The United States has built only 300 in the same period. The Soviet ships are built to a high standard. The Kresta I and II missile carriers, the Kara guided missile cruiser and the Quebec guided missile destroyers are ships of the highest technological standard. I do not think that we have anything in the Royal Navy to approach this.
We know that the total numbers of the Soviet fleet now exceed that of the United States Navy. It has been rightly pointed that the Soviet Union is a land-locked power and for that reason does not need to acquire a navy. Also, it has no trade routes to protect. It is natural to assume that the Soviet Union has greatly increased its naval strength for some possible aggressive purpose.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: My hon. Friend has quoted the gross figures for the total number of ships constructed by the United States and the USSR. Will he acknowledge that the reason for the disparity is that a greater number of small patrol vessels have been built by the USSR? Has he not seen the report in the Financial Times last week which demonstrated that the American Navy has built twice as many major combat ships as the Russians over the past 15 years?

Mr. Cronin: My hon. Friend, with a certain Scottish clairvoyance, has antici-


pated something I was about to say. I suggest that we should analyse the nature of the Soviet naval threat and its history to get a more balanced picture of that threat.
Obviously, the Soviet Union intends its Navy to deter any attacks on its allies and client States. In other words, the Soviet Navy would prevent us from doing a Suez or carrying out another Lebanon landing operation. If it is preserving us from follies such as that, it is doing a worthwhile job. It is also being used to extend Soviet influence throughout the world. I would have thought that that can hardly be counteracted by trying to build a navy of the same size. There are many ways of counteracting Soviet influence. Soviet naval power has been greatly increased for two purposes. The first is to counteract the threat of the United States Polaris submarine and the United States nuclear carrier force, and the second is to have a strategic deterrent.
If we examine the history of the rise of the Soviet Navy we find that it began in 1962 during the Cuban crisis when the Soviet Union was exposed to the utmost humiliation because it had no naval power at all worth talking about. As a result, Mr. Khrushchev got Admiral Gorshkov to take over the Soviet Navy and to initiate a programme of enormous expansion. In 1960 the most tremendous innovation took place, namely, the beginning of the first Polaris submarine, the "George Washington". Here for the first time was a nuclear warhead missile system which could be discharged from a totally invulnerable site. No one thas any illusions that nuclear submarines are easy to find. It is extremely difficult to find them at all in deep water.
In 1968 we had the multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicles—or MIRV—introduced in the Poseidon submarine. This posed an even greater threat to the Soviet Union. Now we have an even more efficient nuclear submarine for nuclear ballistic purposes, the United States Trident submarine. Those advances have been an enormous threat to the Soviet Union. I do not think that we attach sufficient importance to the psychological effect of the United States Navy being able to destroy Soviet cities with comparative ease from a position of almost total invulnerability.

Mr. Patrick Wall: Is not the boot on the other foot? Has not the Soviet Navy got 24 D-Class submarines which have a missile range of 4,500 miles-plus at sea before the first Trident is launched? Can the hon. Gentleman explain, if the reasons for the expansion of the Russian navy are as he suggests, why it ran anti-convoy exercises in the South Atlantic in ' Exercise Okean" last year when it attacked convoys, presumably "dummy" NATO convoys?

Mr. Cronin: These are helpful points in debate and I will deal with them. The interesting point about the Soviet Navy is that it is largely an anti-submarine war navy. The Soviet Navy has one aircraft carrier undergoing trials. The United States and Britain have between them 16 carriers and 10 small carriers. Any navy which has to contest the high seas cannot do so against another navy which is enormously superior in aircraft carriers. I should have thought that that was self-evident.
When the Polaris bases were set up in Spain by the United States, Soviet warships started moving in strength into the Mediterranean, obviously in an attempt to counteract the Polaris submarines. In 1968, when the Poseidon submarine was introduced, it was a much more dangerous threat to the central Soviet Union from the Indian Ocean and it was then that the Soviet Navy started to appear in strength in the Indian Ocean. So the picture is that the Soviet Navy is substantially geared to counteracting the nuclear threat to its own cities.
The hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) asked me about the Soviets' own ballistic submarine force. That must in the nature of things be their own strategic deterrent. In other words, they feel that if the Americans are to have a ballistic submarine force which is a danger to their cities, in view of the inadequacy of modern technology in detecting submarines, they should have their own strategic deterrent submarine force. It is no more than that.
I would be the last to suggest that we should be complacent about the enormous increase in Soviet naval strength. It is obviously a threat, but this House and the Government should take a balanced view of its nature. I do not think that it is as serious as is


suggested by United States admirals, by representatives of industries which make a living supplying naval equipment or by the Leader of the Opposition.
The threat is not nearly so serious, but it cannot be ignored. There are no grounds at all for any further reduction of the fighting capacity and efficiency of the Royal Navy. I hope that there is no possibility in the near future of further attempts to cut the Royal Navy.

6.12 p.m.

Mr. George Younger: I was most interested in the thoughtful speech of the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin). Obviously we shall all want to read it carefully later. However, in his enthusiasm to present a balanced view, he has fallen into the trap of assembling all the facts that he can find and then steering them in the direction in which he felt that his argument should have been leading. Anyone who considers the facts of the Soviet naval increase should not ignore that in almost every case it has been leading itself out of its natural rôle as a continental power, safe from attack from anyone else, into that of an international power able to exert its will anywhere in the world. That is what the Soviet naval threat is about and that is why we should take it as rather more serious than we have so far and not less so.
I want to talk about the equipment of the Royal Navy. I welcome appointments of the Under-Secretary of State for the Navy and the Under-Secretary of State for the Royal Air Force. I should like to ask a number of questions which I hope the Ministers will try to answer more fully than has been done so far.
First, the Under-Secretary said that development work has already begun on Sub-Harpoon, the weapon that we contracted to buy from the Americans some time ago. I understand that development work is necessary to adapt this American weapon for installation in British ships. Does the Minister expect this work to be accomplished on schedule and to ensure that the weapon goes into service as planned? Any slippage would gravely throw into doubt the original agreement with the Americans.
Is there any further information that the Minister can give us tonight or soon

about the offset purchases which the Government have contracted to get from the Americans in return for this order? I had a letter recently from the Secretary of State, in which he assured me that a number of British equipments are under consideration by the United States Defence Department. We should like to know how that is getting on and what prospects there are of having some facts about these offset agreements.
The Minister also mentioned the continued capability of the Royal Navy to operate world-wide if necessary. He mentioned a task force which has just returned after a journey over the seas far from our own shores. The Minister must satisfy us on one further point. It is one thing to send a squadron of ships on a carefully pre-planned tour of overseas areas with a carefully planned programme of Royal Fleet auxiliaries and so on to back them up. No doubt that can still be done, but bearing in mind the severe cut of a third in the strength of the Royal Fleet auxiliaries, which is being put through under the defence cuts at the moment, could such a force be mounted at short notice to meet an unforeseen crisis and be sent to deal with a threat to some vital British interest, as could happen at any time?
That is the test. I suspect that with the reductions which have been made in the Royal Fleet auxiliaries and which are being made now as part of the defence cuts, the vital element of flexibility, the ability to provide them with little or no notice, and to have something in reserve against the unexpected, has been eaten into. We cannot afford that.
The main point was the Minister's statement that our naval strength, in spite of the cuts, is "undiminished" in the Eastern Atlantic. That is a massive understatement. Our naval strength is in no sense undiminished. It is very much diminished and is being further diminished as part of the Government's defence cuts.
As has been said, this criticism does not come from the Opposition alone. It comes from all our NATO Allies. I have said this often, and I will not labour the point. But more important to our debate now, it comes in very telling form from the all-party Select Committee upon which many of our hon. Friends on both


sides of the House are serving so successfully. There is a mass of small and larger criticisms in the Committee's Report which have not yet received detailed answers from Ministers. I should like to remind the Under-Secretary of some and to ask him to let us have detailed answers.
We much enjoyed the hon. Gentleman's speech and welcome him in his new position, but it will not be enough for very long to tell us of the splendid things that there are in the Royal Navy—as of course there are. We must have answers to detailed questions.
In paragraph 16, the Select Committee refers to its concern
… that our ships, compared to those of the Russian Navy, contain a higher proportion of older ships and that they carry substantially fewer missile systems.
I would say, not only fewer but in some cases less up to date and effective. That is a very serious responsibility of the Minister and the Government and I hope that we shall have an answer. The answer cannot be that it is not so, but I hope that it will be that steps are being taken to see that it is put right.
In paragraph 17, we read of the Committee's concern at the increasing dependence of our naval forces in home waters on shore-based aircraft. We have never yet had a proper spelling out of the limitations which reliance on shore-based aircraft must impose on the flexibility of a naval task force when it is put in a situation that it is meeting a hostile threat. It is all very well to plan cruises round our coasts, in the North Sea and in the Eastern Atlantic and to tie in an air support programme which is based on shore. That can be done by the staffs and by the Ministry, of course. Again, it is a matter of flexibility. There are severe limitations on this flexibility because of the reliance on shore-based aircraft. I hope that the Minister will tell us more about this so that we can assess how serious a problem it is.
In paragraph 19 of its Report, the Committee expressed concern about the shortage of escorts which it thought should be looked at again by the Ministry.
In paragraph 24, the Committee expressed concern about the slippage in the construction programme, especially about the shortages of labour at Barrow which have led to considerable delays

in the construction of HMS "Invincible" and to delays at other yards. I hope that the Minister can assure the House that these problems are being overcome and, perhaps more importantly, that the next order will come for Swan Hunter before long. I hope that he can assure the House that there will not be labour difficulties or shortages there if that order is placed, as we hope it will be.
In paragraph 32 of its Report, the Committee asked some questions about possible exports of the Sea Wolf missile. The Committee suggested specifically that the Ministry should mount some major effort to see what possibilities there are. I ask the Minister to describe what efforts have been made and, hopefully. what successes have been achieved.
In that same paragraph, there was also the suggestion that the Ministry should put in hand a study to try to recover the slippage in the construction not only of HMS "Invincible" but also in the Type 22 programme. Are these slippages in sight of being recovered? What steps have been taken? Can we avoid slippages of this kind in the future?
In paragraph 40, the Committee raised the question of a study put in hand by NATO in respect of a possible future light frigate for use by members of the Alliance. It is suggested that the Government should give their support to this. I should like to know what has been done about it and what progress, if any, is being made with it.
I reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) said about the importance of the study of mine warfare. I agree with him that this is a facet of warfare which perhaps is less glamorous than other forms of naval warfare. But it is a type of warfare in which the Russian Navy has a long history of being expert—much longer than just the last 10 years. Therefore, I hope that the Minister can assure the House that our mine and anti-mine technology is keeping well up to all that we know is likely to be put against us and that it is not being neglected in general by the modern programmes.
May I ask the Minister a question which I posed during the general debate on the White Paper about the ability of the Royal Navy to transport at short notice to any trouble spot the commando units which are to be left after the present


cuts are implemented? There were some disturbing reports that it would be necessary to rely on British Rail ferries to do this. I hope that the Minister can assure the House that he has other arrangements in mind because, frankly, it does not fill us with tremendous confidence to think that we are likely to be reduced to that.
I want finally to say a few words about the comments made by various hon. Members on the need to look again at the defence of our North Sea oil areas and the zones round our coasts affected by them. There are various interlocking problems here which require further study.
The Minister will know that doubts have been expressed about the Jura class vessels. I wonder whether the design of those vessels does not owe more to the need for quick announcements and decisions in getting out a small programme for building them than to a thoughtful working out of what is needed. Almost everyone to whom I have spoken has criticised the speed of these vessels. I am sure that they are excellent in many ways, but a maximum speed of 16 knots, which is probably not an effective cruising speed for very long, is no faster than the speed of the ordinary ferries which we operate between the islands off the West coast of Scotland. When we think of dealing with swiftly developing threats which may be terrorist inspired and quite unexpected in their nature, we need to think in terms of a vessel which is faster than that.
Allied to this criticism of the vessels' speed is the surprising feature that they are not to be equipped with helicopter platforms. I believe that platforms for even the smallest helicopters would improve immensely the deterrent value of these ships, to say nothing of their flexibility. It is all very well to say that the ship will plough its way to any trouble spot at 16 knots and that meantime Nimrods will watch overhead to make sure what is happening. The damage could be done by the time the ship arrived on the scene. I agree that we need to look at it again.
The basic trouble is that, because the Ministry is naturally short of money and going through a time of great difficulty generally, there is a tremendous temptation on everyone to persuade even himself that the real answer is that everything is

all right as it stands, because that does not involve extra expenditure and difficulty.
It is the case that, within the limits of what is needed at the moment, things are working all right. But we have not had a major threat with which to deal. We have had only routine activities and, thanks to the skill of the Royal Navy, everything is working all right at the moment. However, we have to plan for the time when they are not working all right, and we have to be able to meet any difficulty which may arise.
My concern about the effect of these cuts on the capability of the Royal Navy to meet the unexpected threats which will undoubtedly arise is undiminished by anything that has been said by Government spokesmen. The Icelandic conflict is, to my mind, a supreme example of the unexpected threat with which we are not equipped to deal. I am not suggesting that I foresaw it or that anyone could have done so, but it is a very good example, and there will no doubt be many other such threats which will develop, the type of which we cannot forecast. The only answer for a prudent Minister is always to have something up his sleeve against the unexpected. That can be done only by providing ships which are flexible, which are able not only to deal with the peacetime tasks which are planned carefully in advance but can move quickly to any spot and cope with different types of trouble.
That is where the Government are going wrong. I know that the Ministers do their best to preserve what they can in these difficult times. But I hope that they will not let matters get out of perspective. Their duty is not just to look at the financial side. Their duty is to tell their colleagues when the financial side is impairing our ability to defend ourselves. We all rely on them to tell their colleagues that and to ensure that action is taken before it is too late.

6.28 p.m.

Mr. R. E. Bean: So far today, we have heard two views about the rôle of the Royal Navy. I suspect that later on we shall hear a third view about defence generally.
The Government's attitude, which I support, is that we have an adequate


defence system, bearing in mind the present economic capability of the country. The view of the Opposition is that we should increase our defence capability because of the threat from the Soviet Navy. I was interested to hear the challenge thrown out by the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) to his own Front Bench to name a figure. I think that we are entitled to hear from the Opposition by how much they would propose to increase defence expenditure.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman wishes to be fair. I did not challenge my own Front Bench to give a figure. I merely challenged them and the Government to admit that we cannot have what we want without spending more. When in Opposition, it is not possible to give a detailed figure.

Mr. Bean: My first interpretation was right.
I was particularly interested in the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin), who explained the political side of the current problem between the super Powers—Russia and the United States. He put the position clearly. Many statistics have been thrown about the Chamber today and a set of relevant statistics was issued last week by the Pentagon. The Pentagon admitted that, far from outbuilding the United States, the Russians are behind with large surface craft. It admitted that in the last 15 years the United States Navy built 122 ships of 3,000 tons and over, while the Russians built 57. The United States built only two small antisubmarine vessels of less than 3,000 tons while the Russians built 83. The emphasis is on defence, anti-submarine and mine warfare as opposed to large capital ships.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman again, but he has not mentioned the building figures for Soviet U-boats. One new Soviet nuclear U-boat is built each month. That is not a weapon of defence; it is a weapon of attack. That figure was left out by the Pentagon and by The Times newspaper recently.

Mr. Bean: I take the hon. and gallant Gentleman's point.
We are debating the British Navy in the NATO Alliance and therefore we must look at the overall picture. Britain has an important rôle to play. I am pleased that the Government have decided to build ASW cruisers, because they will be an effective answer to the nuclear submarine. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said that these cruisers are capable of carrying Sea King helicopters and have the anti-submarine capability of a frigate. It is proposed to build three of these cruisers, which will go a long way towards providing a defence system against nuclear submarines in the Atlantic.
This morning the NEC of the Labour Party expressed the view that we should cut back our defence capabilities. I do not accept that view. I appreciate that it is a sincere view, but, in the long run, when the consequences of such a policy are examined, with its effect on jobs—about 30,000 may be affected—and on exports, I am sure that the Labour movement will agree that it is a leap in the dark, both politically and economically. I hope that that view will be rejected by the Labour movement.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary paid tribute to the Royal dockyards, which are of interest to my constituency. The modern ship is complicated. Because we are trying to economise we keep our ships in service longer, but they must be modernised and refitted—a process that becomes more complex as time goes by. Chatham Dockyard has been equipped as a refitting dockyard, and work is supplemented by conventional refitting, although the emphasis is on nuclear submarines. Originally it was thought that they could remain at sea for four years before having to return to port to refuel and refit. But experience has shown that they do not need to return to port for five or six years. Therefore, there will not be continuity in the refitting programme. My constituents are anxious to know whether the gap can be filled by further conventional work or whether a third nuclear submarine will come in from time to time.
At present HMS "Conqueror" is being refitted, but that work will be completed two months ahead of time. The next submarine will not arrive at the dockyard until October. That means a loss of earnings of between £30 and £35 a week


for my constituents. Nobody can afford that loss. If there are peaks and troughs in demand, dockyard workers will look elsewhere for work.
HMS "Warspite" is now in the Mersey, following an accident on board after a fire in the diesel generators, which damaged electrical equipment. Rumours are that the ship will be docked and repaired on the Mersey, but we are anxious that it should come back to Chatham. The ship is nuclear-activated, and if it is to be in dock for a long time it should come to Chatham, where we have the capability to handle it.
Hon. Members have mentioned the cod war. HMS "Diomedes" came into Chatham three weeks ago, after she had been damaged, but the dockyard management said that it had not got the labour to do the work. She was diverted to Plymouth. where overtime has to be worked to complete the job. In my dockyard men are standing around idle waiting for work, and yet work is being diverted elsewhere.
Labour Party policy, as described in the manifesto, is that the Royal dockyards shall be made available, not only for defence use but for general industrial use. The expertise and capital equipment in the dockyards should be used for the general economic benefit of the country.
There are about 50 acres of unused land at Chatham. Firms are looking for sites for factories, but these 50 idle acres cannot be used for that purpose. Will the Minister look at that problem? I hope that he will visit Chatham and meet my constituents, to hear their problems at first hand.

6.39 p.m.

Mr. Richard Luce: I apologise to the Minister and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mr. Gilmour) for not being in the Chamber to hear their speeches, but I was on a Select Committee. I hope that in my speech I shall not repeat too many things that have already been said. If I ask the Minister to answer a question I shall understand if he has already dealt with that point, and I shall look it up in the Official Report.
I was interested in the speech by the hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bean), who represents an area with

a strong naval interest. He did a service by explaining his constituents problems in terms of unemployment in relation to the Governments' defence policies.
The hon. Gentleman made an important point, which seems to be coming to the surface in this debate, about the importance of large ships compared with small ships. Clearly that argument will develop in view of the recent report on the matter. It is the Government's duty to tell the House how they see it. It is dangerous to over-simplify. It is not right to suggest that the criterion for a successful ship is necessarily its size. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) referred to the great expansion in the number of Soviet nuclear submarines. for example.
The main burden of my argument must centre around the main threat to Britain's defence interests. Despite what one or two hon. Members have said, I remain convinced that the real threat to our defence in the long term must be the Soviet Union's dramatic expansion of its naval forces over the past decade or so. We cannot evade the cold, hard fact that since the Cuban crisis we have seen a dramatic expansion in the quantity and quality of Soviet ships. We have seen the growing provision of facilities for the Soviet Navy world-wide, the growth in its nuclear forces. in its missile-armed submarines, its generally improved missile system and its naval presence in all the oceans of the world.
As always happens when the Government publish their White Papers, they eloquently describe the threat and the dilemma we face. Their analysis is always brilliant. It is the way in which they deal with the threat that causes serious doubts.
On page 5 of the White Paper we read:
The major Soviet threat at sea is posed by their very large submarine force of over 330 operational submarines: 130 of these are nuclear-powered.
We have only to look at paragraph 17. which says:
Eleven Delta class nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines are now operational and can threaten all Europe and most of Northern America from Soviet home waters.
We have only to look at the reference to the construction of a Soviet aircraft


carrier, at a time when the Western world, particularly Britain, appears to be phasing out aircraft carriers.
Paragraph 19 refers to Soviet air power and the Backfire supersonic bomber, which has been introduced and which the White Paper says threatens NATO's shipping on the transatlantic sea routes.
The whole problem has been well analysed and summarised in the White Paper. We see that 45 per cent. of the ships in the surface combatant naval force of the Soviet Union are less than 10 years old—far younger than the NATO ships.
We have only to look at Lloyd's Register to see that over the past 18 years the Soviet merchant fleet has grown from 26th in the world to sixth. Of the world's total of 900 trawlers of more than 2,000 tons, 643 are from the Soviet Union. Lloyd's Register shows that 122 of the 139 fishing factory vessels of more than 10,000 tons are from the Soviet Union.
Hon. Members may ask what that has to do with defence. There is evidence that the merchant ships and fishing vessels have highly sophisticated equipment, which can monitor what the Western world is doing. There is also plenty of evidence that Soviet merchant fleets often carry defence equipment across the trade routes and oceans. That is why those statistics are significant to us.
We know that the Soviet Union has well over 100 survey ships, six missile support auxiliary ships and 25 repair ships, which enable its fleets to be more self-supporting. The Soviet Union's naval manpower—470,000 officers and ratings—is bigger than the whole of Britain's total defence strength.
I come to the question of the flanks. We have only to look at the chart on page 7 of the White Paper to see the growing preponderance of the Soviet Union's Northern Fleet compared with NATO's. In the Eastern Atlantic we are under growing threat, with a great expansion in the number of Soviet nuclear submarines, guided missile cruisers and destroyers. We know, too, that in that area a new canal has been built between the White Sea and the Baltic, which facilitates the expansion of the Soviet Navy into the oceans of the world.
On another vulnerable flank, in the Mediterranean, the Soviet Union has a permanent presence of about 60 ships. Another important area, upon which we depend for our oil supplies, is the Indian Ocean, where the Soviet Union has a permanent presence of at least 20 ships. Contrary to the comments of Mr. Gromyko in London recently, the late Marshal Grechko confirmed that it is the Soviet policy to continue to expand its forces. Admiral Gorshkov instructed the Soviet Navy to go to sea and stay there. As a result, the Soviet Navy is now spreading its tentacles to every ocean and sea. The Russian bear is learning to swim.
We must ask why Russia, with its vast land mass—a country that is largely selfsupporting—needs to expand its Navy in that way, to increase the number of its ships and the oceans into which it goes. Can the policy of encircling the Western world, of outflanking it, really just be defensive, as the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) suggested?
We understand from all the lessons of history about the balance of power that any country, including the Soviet Union. wants to ensure that it is adequately defended. When it was expanding its sea power in the 1960s, that must have been a major consideration, but can it be the Soviet Union's sole objective? We must ask that question when we look at the cold, hard facts of what it is doing. Even the Chinese are telling us that the Soviet Union is expanding with aggressive purposes. We know that there are other objectives besides defence. It is part of the Russians' economic and foreign policy. They have obtained facilities in South Yemen, Somalia and Conakry, and no doubt will very shortly have facilities in Luanda. All this has political, economic and in the long term possibly very serious military implications for the Western world. It is a gradual political and economic subversion and erosion of the West's position.
We must assume from the evidence available that one of the purposes of the expansion of Soviet sea power is to gather intelligence. That should be taken for granted. We must assume also that another of the purposes is to enhance Soviet training and general capability in the world, and we must assume as well, from the evidence—unless someone can
produce new information to disprove it —that the Soviet objective, equally, is to have the potential to cut off completely the trade routes of the Western world. If the Soviet Union wishes to adopt an aggressive military policy, it has provided itself with facilities to do it. It can now cut off the lifeline of the Western world. It has the strategic capability to attack major NATO targets. It can support land and amphibious operations in almost any part of the world.
Therefore, we must make the assumption that it poses a real threat to the West. It would be irresponsible to make any other assumption, when we have an overwhelming duty in this House to set as our prime objective the adequate defence of this country and of the Western world.
In looking at the position of the West, and of Britain particularly, one can see the importance of sea lanes to our trade. and the importance of merchant shipping to our survival. Also one can see the importance of the continuing flow of oil and international trade to our survival. It does seem odd to react to this grave menace, as the British Government have done, by reducing the numbers of our destroyers and frigates by 15 per cent., our planned, conventionally-powered submarines by 25 per cent., our amphibious forces by 25 per cent., our fixed-wing transport by 50 per cent. and our Nimrods and helicopters by 25 per cent. The men in the Kremlin must be rubbing their hands with glee at the way in which we in Britain, and in some other Western countries, too, are reacting to the expansion of their forces. Indeed, one can see a look of glee on the faces of some hon. Members on the Government Benches when they think about this situation. It makes one wonder whether they have the true interests of this country at heart.
We have been warned by military leaders in the Western world, by the Secretary-General of NATO, by Admiral of the Fleet Sir Peter Hill-Norton, and by Admiral Sir Terence Lewin. These people are responsible Service leaders, in high positions, and they say that our defences are inadequate at the present time.
Additionally, we have to consider the growing importance of providing adequate defences for North Sea oil.

Then there is the dispute with Iceland and the enormous strain it is imposing on the British Navy. There is also the unstable situation in the Mediterranean and the outflanking of the West in the southern Africa area.
Whether we like it or not there are certain remnants from our imperial past for which we are still responsible, such as the Belize and the Falkland Islands. What happens, for example, if Argentina moves into the Falkland Islands? We still have responsibilities towards the Falkland Islands and we have to be ready to respond to any possible threats to them.
I must pose one or two questions to the Minister. Our job is to show evidence of what is happening, then it is up to the Government to reassure us, which they have not done so far. We have a duty to pose certain questions and the Government have an obligation to answer them and show that they can provide this country and the Western world with adequate defence forces.
Have we provided adequate forces to counter the aggressive intentions and potential of the Soviet Union? Have we got adequate forces to protect our sea lanes, when 1,000 ships of NATO countries pass around the Cape route every month? Have we adequate escorts for convoys of ships in that area in time of war?
My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester referred to an important point concerning NATO's area of responsibility, which ends at the Tropic of Cancer. When we depend for so much of our trade on the South Atlantic routes, which are outside the direct area of NATO responsibilities, should NATO wash its hands of that area? The Minister has a duty to explain what NATO is doing and also what Britain is doing about this in terms of the NATO Study Groups. What action would the Western world take south of the Tropic of Cancer if there were any threats to Western interests in that part of the world.
The Minister also must tell us whether we have the capacity to defend Belize or the Falkland Islands; if we could look after our interests in North Sea oil, and have the capacity, at the same time, to cope with the Icelandic situation? I say "at the same time", because we


should be prepared for all these things to explode at the same moment.
Are our vulnerable flanks—the Mediterranean and the northern flank—adequately defended, considering the growing preponderance of Soviet forces in the area? Have we sufficient amphibious forces to cope with a situation in the Norwegian area? Have we the ability to provide adequate reserve stocks for the Western and European sector if war is declared? We know from evidence that if war were declared the European NATO Powers would require about 100,000 tons a day of vital defence equipment from across the Atlantic, and from the United States in particular. Have we the capacity to defend convoys of ships that would have to cross the Atlantic bringing adequate reserves of defence equipment to deal with potential threats?
Then there is the question of slippage in the construction programme, which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger). Are we going to produce on time those ships which we are planning to produce? What is being done to ensure that they are delivered on time, in view of the fact that our naval defences have been weakened already?
It is the Government's job to satisfy the House that they are providing this country and Western Europe with adequate defence forces to cope with all these potential threats which exist in the world today, primarily from the Soviet Union. The Minister must do his best to answer these questions and give us some reassurance.
The United Kingdom, with its enormous naval history, provides 70 per cent. of NATO's forces in the Eastern flank and the Channel. We provide a distinctive service with our Navy, which has a wonderful history. Once we start reducing it below the capacity we need it will be difficult to restore it to the correct level.
The Government have a primary duty to ensure that this country is adequately defended. Succeeding generations will never forgive us if we let the country down and imperil their freedom. It is up to the Government to be more robust on defence and to tell the Soviet Union that so long as it expands its naval

forces we shall respond and be ready to deal with any threat that comes our way.

7.1 p.m.

Mr. James Johnson: If I may I shall leave the subject of the Soviet Fleet, although I am tempted to talk about Soviet fishing and factory vessels. I shall instead confine my comments to the Navy's activities and its magnificent work in the so-called cod war.
First, however, I should feel ashamed, after my long association with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy, who is my Yorkshire neighbour, if I failed to compliment him on his position on the Front Bench. He is a square peg in a square hole, and if he thinks that he is lucky to be in his post, I believe that the Navy is lucky to have one of its former men looking after it as its political chief. I welcome him and I wish him all success.
I want to deal with the activities in Icelandic waters of the Navy and with some of the snags which have arisen. These matters are of vital constituency interest to me, but I promise not to make a parochial speech. I intend to ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for information, and I am grateful for the way in which he listened earlier to the question about the uncivilised behaviour of the Icelandic coastguard vessel "Aegir" in firing a shot at the Primella and in preparing a boarding party which was stated to be in the water. I hope that we shall get a full and satisfactory reply on that matter at the end of the debate. I am quite appalled at the buccaneering behaviour of our NATO partners.
I should like to know what is the position to date and what part is being played by the Navy. This subject is of vital importance to us in Hull, Fleetwood, Grimsby and Aberdeen. The vessel owners may be losing money, but the trawlermen stand to lose their lives. Meanwhile, the wives of the skippers and the deckhands wait anxiously at home. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs told me:
We continue to seek a fair and honourable solution to this dispute, and meanwhile to protect our trawlers obtaining their livelihood."— [Official Report, 28th April 1976; Vol. 910, c. 111.]
That is our obligation in this House. We are thankful for the magnificent work that


the Navy is doing. I have been deeply involved in both cod wars. No Back Bencher could have paid more visits to the Icelandic Ambassador in the days of Mr. Nils Siggurdsson. I therefore have a good idea of the difficulties facing cut fishermen and the Navy.
The Navy is always magnificent it Whitehall allows it to be. It deserves the highest commendation. But how far are our men fighting with their hands tied behind their backs? How far are they being undermined by influences at home and abroad, and by the Press here in the last few weeks? I was shocked to see the Varoomshka cartoon in The Guardian on Monday morning. It is a sick cartoon judging by the way in which it refers to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and the part the Navy is playing.
There is support for the Government's policy in all quarters and by all parties in the House except for the SNP which, of course, has ulterior motives. It is interesting, however, to see what is being said in Iceland on the subject, and I shall quote from two Icelandic newspapers. The first is the Morgunbladid which said in an editorial on 10th April:
Mr. Anthony Crosland has been appointed Foreign Secretary, who is MP for Grimsby and represents voters with a direct interest in the fishery dispute. It will be recalled that 10 days before the fishery jurisdiction was extended to 200 miles, on 5th of October last year, Mr. Crosland, speaking in his constituency, said that British fishermen had an undoubted right to fish up to the 12-mile fishery limit of Iceland and that Britain must and will fish inside the 50-mile limit, that that traditional right has been Britain's for 500 years, and that the British Government was determined to protect the right.
To that I say "Amen". There are other party newspapers in Iceland. One, the Dagbladid, said,
Nobody wanted to discuss the offer Mr. Geir Hallgrimsson brought home with him. The judgment of the general public and of most politicians was and still is that it is a stronger move to continue the stalemate on the fishing banks and let time work for us, rather than agree to a catch quota that will satisfy the British.
There are moves both in London and in Reykjavik to fetch out our fishing fleet. Siren voices say "Pull out the frigates ".The inference of that is that Iceland would then negotiate, but will it? My view is that if the Navy left and our vessels stopped fishing, and returned to Hull and Grimsby, our case would go

by default. We would have no cards to play. I he skippers and men in these dangerous, inhospitable and bleak waters wish to fish and to make money. Some of the deckhands, however, want to come back, but not because the Navy is not doing its job. They think the Navy is doing a magnificent job in looking after them. They want to come back because there is no compensation for loss of earnings. Their union, the Transport and General Workers' Union, is doing its best to get that compensation.
Lately the Navy has been accused of creating a hiatus, so the skippers in Hull and elsewhere tell me. I cannot criticise the Navy because I believe that it is doing a magnificent job. Its ships were never designed for this work, however. Their hulls are thin, with perhaps only 1½ in or 2½-in of steel. If they were gashed below the waterline men could be catapulted into the sea. What banner headlines there would be if a sailor or a trawlerman fell into those waters in winter weather. Fishermen tell me that he would not last two minutes.
Our men have to be careful, and the Icelandic gunboats have exploited the situation to a dangerous degree. What instruction has Whitehall given to the frigate captains? Obviously the top priority has been to keep the gunboats away from our fishing vessels, even at the risk of collision and, although our vessels have manoeuvred to the best of their ability, there have been collisions. The captains are obviously worried. I have spoken to them in Hull and I realise that they must avoid damage to their vessels. They shadow the enemy and warn our fishermen when the gunboats "Thor", "Aegir" and others are in the vicinity.
I wish to ask the Minister some questions to which I hope he will give me full and frank answers. Have conditions changed? Are we back on course? What latitude are the captains allowed in manoeuvring their vessels? If there has been a change, it seems to have been purely tactical.

Mr. Alan Clark: The hon. Member is making an extremely important point. Does he agree that, despite the skills of the crews and their dedication, the Navy vessels which are being employed are wholly inappropriate for this task? I hope that when the Minister answers the hon. Member's questions he will comment on


the unsuitability and extravagance of using frigates in what is, in effect, a ramming competition.

Mr. Johnson: I am not a Navy man or an engineer, so I am not competent to comment on those matters. However, I shall await the Minister's reply with great interest and anxiety.
I urge my hon. Friend to consult the Ministry of Agriculture about whether financial assistance or subsidies can be given to the industry so that crews can get compensation for loss of earnings.
This is a vital problem for the people in the fishing ports. If they are not given Navy protection and cannot continue fishing in the northern waters, hundreds of men may lose their jobs. Deputations come to this House from shipyards and factories which are in difficulties. Here we have an industry and a fleet of ships in difficulties. Apart from the men who actually catch the fish, there are many ancillary workers involved. If 100 fishermen lose their jobs, about 500 people on shore will become unemployed.
I urge the Minister to give us a full and frank statement about the present situation when he replies to the debate.

7.14 p.m.

Mr. Michael Brotherton: It is always a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson), whose knowledge of the fishing industry is surpassed by none.
As an ex-sailor and member of the Fleet Air Arm, I congratulate the Minister on his appointment. I am told that morale in the Navy is now much better because of his appointment in place of the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Judd).
I told the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North that I intended to refer to him in my speech. His only interest in the Navy appeared to be in ensuring that Portsmouth Dockyard never closed, and the reason he did not wish it to close was that it lies in his constituency. I regard the hon. Member as the most disastrous happening to the Royal Navy since Lord Charles Beresford conducted his campaign against Jackie Fisher in this House 70 years ago. The Navy is happy with the change.
The primary task of the Royal Navy is to defend our lines of communication at sea and to deny their use to an enemy and, secondly, to defend our mariners going about their lawful occasions on the high seas.
Many of the people who fish from the port of Grimsby are my constituents from Clecthorpes and the surrounding area. We are deeply grateful for the magnificent work the Navy has done in supporting them during the cod war. On the south bank of the Humber, we are very grateful for the way the Government have conducted themselves and for their decision to send the frigates in support of our fishermen.
I was delighted when the Minister of State for Defence and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food both assured the House last week that the support would continue. We have to make absolutely clear that British fishermen in the northern waters are fishing in international waters. They are going about their lawful occasions on the high seas, and until the Law of the Sea Conference reports and the rules of the game are changed, the Icelanders have no right to harass our ships.
I had a meeting today with representatives of the Findus firm, whose large factory in my constituency processes a vast tonnage of fish every year. I wish to stress the great importance of British fishermen being allowed to land fish at Grimsby. Employment is provided not only for those in the fishing fleet but for five or six times as many on shore, producing fish fingers and other forms of processed fish from the cod that we catch in the northern waters.
Turning to more general matters, it is now just over a year since the shameful decision of the Government to abrogate the Simonstown agreement, leaving us with no base for British ships to operate from in the Indian Ocean. We are told by various Ministers that we can use Simonstown on a consumer basis and that there are other ports that our ships can use. But which ports are these?
Let us imagine that we are taking a ship round the Cape. That is where a vast quantity of shipping passes every day, bringing us oil and raw materials on which we are totally dependent. We do not produce sufficient raw materials for our needs. They come by sea, and a very


high percentage of them come round the Cape. Where can the ship that we are taking round the Cape be refuelled? Angola? I think not. We are busy insulting South Africa, so we cannot use Simonstown with a clear conscience—assuming the Government have a conscience.
Let us take our ship further round the coast. Could we go to Beira, which is under a Marxist regime? I doubt it very much. How about Tanzania? I fear that is unlikely. I am told that the appointment of a residential naval officer in Mombasa is to cease shortly. This is the only port on the east coast of Africa where there are reasonably friendly facilities to our Navy.
If we go further north we get to Somalia, another Marxist regime. Would they accept our ships? Of course they would not. There are too many Russian ships there already. Another alternative is to go across to the old colony of Aden. That is another Marxist regime. There is nowhere on the east coast of Africa where the Royal Navy can be refuelled and victualled.
I know that the Under-Secretary of State is as aware as I am that the Russians operate with greater and greater strength in the Indian Ocean. It has been said today that the Russians have only one aircraft carrier, but it is significant that they are building more. They have two on the stocks and there are more to come. It is significant that in the 1970s, having phased out our fixed-wing air support—namely, the Fleet Air Arm—so that HMS "Ark Royal" is the only aircraft carrier that remains, the Russians are introducing carriers into service. That is not a coincidence. The Russians realise the value of fixed-wing air support.
I turn to our amphibious forces, or rather our lack of them. Last month I went to the farewell ceremony for HMS "Bulwark", a ship on which I served some 14 years ago with the Royal Marines. HMS "Bulwark" and "Albion" have done more as fighting units for this country over the past 16 or 17 years than any other form of naval, army or air force unit.
The two ships saw service in the confrontation that took place in Borneo. During the East African mutinies, which took place when I was on HMS

"Albion", the Governments of Tanzania, Kenya and Uganda were kept in being because we were able to fly our Royal Marine Commandos ashore to look after the people and put down the army mutinies. The two ships were involved in the fighting in Aden and elsewhere.
In this year's White Paper, and in last year's, it is insisted that Her Majesty's Government are totally committed to the idea of a viable amphibious force. I ask the Under-Secretary of State how we are to transport the Royal Marines and Commandos if we have no commando ship.
I am sure that he did not mean to do so, but yesterday he gave a particularly misleading answer to a Question that I put to him on this very matter. He said:
Although HMS "Bulwark" has been taken off the active list since 31st March this year, her material condition is being maintained until decisions can be taken about the Royal Navy's ASW capability."—[Official Report, 11th May 1976; Vol. 911, c. 215.]
I was asking not about ASW capability but about amphibious forces. I was asking about the transportation of the Royal Marines and about the movement of helicopters.
We are told—can the Minister deny this?—that a British Rail ferry will be used in the autumn to transport Royal Marine Commandos to take part in exercises off Norway. The British Rail ferry cannot carry helicopters and cannot carry the necessary spares. Unless the sea is like a millpond there is no hope of even landing the Commandos. That is the state to which the Government have reduced the Royal Navy. That is the Royal Navy that over the past 500 years has stood for all that is great in Britain. The post of First Lord of the Admiralty was one of the great jewels of Government. People strove to be appointed to that post, including the Duff Coopers and the Churchills.
What do we have now? After two years of the equivalent post of First Lord of the Admiralty having been occupied by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North, we have a Royal Navy the morale of which is low, although it is improving since the appointment of the present Under-Secretary of State. We have a Navy that cannot perform its functions, a Navy that cannot undertake the primary purpose of any Government in a free land —namely, to defend the nation against the threat of the Soviet Union.

7.25 p.m.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: As one who has sat in his place almost continuously since half-past three this afternoon, I am painfully aware that the start of the debate was a long time ago. However, I hope that the House will bear with me if I return to the beginning of the debate. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State mentioned me by name, it is only fair that I should take up some of the comments that he made. At the risk of provoking a return to the exchanges of icy politenesses with which the debate began, I must tell the House that my hon. Friend warned me in advance that he would refer to me.
I think that the House would consider me churlish if I did not thank him for having commented so fully on the speech that I made in the defence debate last month. On a number of occasions I have complained in the House about the excessive secrecy of the Ministry of Defence, and its failure to reply to the points that we put to it. We have a duty to interrogate the Government from our various points of view, and it is of enormous help to Parliament, in its rôle of parliamentary scrutineer, if Ministers are as helpful and full in reply to our comments as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. That is why I fear that when he goes to the Minister of Defence tomorrow morning someone will take him aside and suggest that he need not be quite so full on future occasions. I am most grateful for my hon. Friend's comments, and I shall study them with care tomorrow morning in Hansard.
There are one or two points that I shall make off the cuff in reply to what my hon. Friend has said. First, with reference to the graph that was published in the Defence Review, my comment was not that there had been a selective approach to the ships counted within the boundary of the graph, but that the boundary itself was rather selective in that it happened to contain the major Russian naval base. Presumably all the ships attached to that base are counted as being readily available for deployment in that area.
There is a simple way of resolving the matter, namely, for my hon. Friend, if he is prepared to do so, to place in the Library parallel graphs for the Western Atlantic Division and the Channel Divi-

sion. I appreciate that there may be security reasons which will preclude him from taking that course. However, a graph relating to the Eastern Atlantic has been published. I hope that my hon. Friend will take the view that the information is not classified and that he will make similar graphs available for the other two areas of the Atlantic.
My hon. Friend did not challenge the statement that I made in last year's debate on the Royal Navy, that the Russian surface fleet was no larger than it had been in 1958. In last year's debate I was drawing on information from the Brookings Institute. That is an independent organisation that is not affiliated to the Tribune Group. It is not a subcommittee of the NEC. The paper showed that between 1958 and 1972 the Russian surface fleet did not show any significant increase, although ships were modernised and replaced.
Last month, in the defence debate, I quoted figures to demonstrate that in the past 10 years the Warsaw Pact countries have produced 84 major combat ships and that the NATO countries have produced 151. Since then, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bean) has pointed out, we have had the publication of further figures from America. They show, if we confine our attention to ships of over 3,000 tons that have been built in the past 15 years, that the Warsaw Pact countries have built 57 ships and that America has built 122. The latter figure relates entirely to America and does not take account of any ships that might have been produced by America's NATO allies.
I accept my hon. Friend's point that the comparisons I have drawn are historic—that they tell us what has happened over the past decade or 15 years. I accept that it requires continuing vigilance to ensure that superiority is maintained. However, shipbuilding capacity takes a considerable time to increase, and it is difficult to believe that the rate of shipbuilding construction in the USSR is now so dramatically different from that of 1974 or 1975, which are years included in the figures that I have quoted.
My hon. Friend has pointed out that the figures do not take account of the submarine balance. That has been referred to by many other hon. Members. I


accept that a greater number of submarines have been constructed by the Warsaw Pact countries than by the NATO countries in the past decade. I admitted that in my intervention, in which I was drawing on a table that is published annually in the "Military Balance", which is produced by the International Institute of Strategic Studies. I think that Members from all corners of the House will accept that it is an independent and fairly authoritative review.
If we take the table for the latest year that I have seen, which is in the publication for 1975–76, we see that a greater number of submarines have been laid down by the Soviet Union over the past decade. But that greater number is due only to the greater number of ballistic missile submarines that Russia has constructed in the past decade—more than twice as many as the Western countries.
I share the concern of all hon. Members at the rate of construction of ballistic missile submarines by Russia. It is frightening. It is giving the Soviet Union an overkill capacity, almost comparable to the overkill capacity of the United States. Such capacity is lunacy. It is frightening from whichever corner is comes, but perhaps particularly from that corner.
However, let us consider the published figures for those submarines, which are attack submarines. Ballistic missile submarines are not built to attack the ordinary merchant shipping lanes. They remain concealed and do not betray their position by attack. An analysis of attack submarines built in the past decade shows that the Warsaw Pact countries have built 81 submarines and that NATO countries have built 80. There is an almost precise arithmetical balance between the two rates of construction.
Some hon. Members may ask: why do the Warsaw Pact countries need 81 attack submarines? That is a valid question. But we should bear in mind that somebody in Warsaw, in the Kremlin and in East Berlin is asking an almost identical question: why do the NATO countries need to build 80 attack submarines? If we become obsessed with counting the numbers of ships and submarines constructed by the other side, without bearing in mind the effect upon them of the ships and submarines that we lay down,

we shall become locked in a never-ending arms race—a spiral from which we can escape only by conflict.
I should like to put three other points to my hon. Friend. I hope that he will hear with me if I deal with them briefly in the next 10 minutes.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for having given such a full reply to the points that I made last month, but I hope that he will find time at the end of the debate to reply also to the interesting point made by the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mr. Gilmour) about supplies of tritium. Some of my hon. Friends are anxious to hear a reply to that question, too.
As I understand the situation, our agreement with America for the supply of tritium was first concluded in 1959. Some of us have great difficulty in understanding why an agreement that has apparently worked adequately and at fairly economic cost to us for nearly two decades should now require to be abrogated and replaced by another arrangement.
I find it hard to believe that the comparatively small runs of tritium—if runs is the right term—which Britain will require will justify the substantial capital investment required to create the plant at Dumfries, which will need 50 workers to man it. Indeed, as the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham said, it begs the question of the future of the Polaris submarines. Hitherto, we have been told that the future life of these submarines is unlikely to exceed another decade. As the plant will not be operational for the next three or four years, unless there has been a serious change of policy, we shall have to recover our costs over a period of only six or seven years. I should be grateful for further enlightenment on that matter when the Minister replies to the debate.
The second question relates to Press reports, a fortnight ago, that nuclear depth charges have entered service with the NATO countries, including Britain. My hon. Friend will not be surprised that I should raise this matter, as five hon. Members tabled a large number of questions on it last week. I noted from the Press reports on this matter a quotation from an RAF officer in which he said:
We are not ashamed to be training to attack such a fair target as a submarine which


is prepared to attack cities crowded with civilians, using imprecisely aimed nuclear rockets from the apparent safety of the open sea.
I have great sympathy with that observation. But if the use of a ballistic missile submarine is so execrable that we are justified in stopping at nothing to destroy it, it raises some pertinent moral questions about our own nuclear deterrent which is adequately and aptly described in that very quotation.
I mention that in passing, because the point that I wanted to press on my hon. Friend is that many Labour Members are concerned that tactical nuclear weapons, such as this, dangerously lower the firebreak between the conventional and the nuclear explosive. Is there not a serious danger of a further weakening in that firebreak by the introduction of nuclear depth charges? The temptation to use them will be greater because there will be no collateral damage. There will he no civilians about to be destroyed. Moreover, it will be more difficult to verify whether they have been used. It is not impossible to construct a scenario in which one side discovers that its submarine has disappeared and is then left wondering whether it was destroyed by a nuclear or a conventional weapon. Therefore, I ask my hon. Friend seriously to consider whether the introduction of such weapons and their increasing proliferation will not lead us into a situation where the firebreak between the nuclear and the conventional is dangerously blurred.
The last point I wish to make, at slightly greater length, concerns arms exports. I indicated during Business Questions a fortnight ago that I might raise this matter in one of the Estimates debates. This is a more general point than the two points that I have just made. However, I believe that it is competent for me to raise it in this debate, since there is an intimate relationship between the Estimates and the arms that we export. Although all three Services are involved, it is appropriate to raise this matter in a debate on the Royal Navy, since naval armaments comprise perhaps the largest components of our arms exports.
I spoke at length on this matter in the debate last July and I do not wish to

go over the general ground. However, I am moved to return to the subject by two recent developments.
The first was the visit by the Secretary of State for Defence, only a fortnight ago, to South Korea for the avowed—openly admitted—purpose of selling arms. I am not aware whether they were naval arms, because its own secrecy does not permit the Ministry of Defence to divulge the nature of the arms that it was seeking to sell.
I was seriously disturbed to read these Press reports, because there is a highly repressive regime in South Korea. I recall that a year ago a spokesman for the South Korean Government said "We are rather better than Spain. We still have an Opposition." Unfortunately, only last March, all the Opposition were arrested and imprisoned. They were not by any stretch of imagination pro-Communist.

Mr. Alan Clark: What about the Opposition in North Korea?

Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman asks about North Korea. I should be happy to make a similar speech on North Korea if we were faced with a situation in which any member of the Labour Cabinet had visited North Korea to offer to sell armaments. At the moment no one has done that. We must wait and see whether that development occurs. I am dealing with places to which members of the Government have paid visits. I am confident that if any member of the Government goes to North Korea, we shall have similar speches from the Opposition.
The Opposition in South Korea, who have been arrested and imprisoned, are by no means pro-Communist. The statement on which they were arrested was read out in the Catholic cathedral of the capital city. Ironically, it was a statement that called on the West to withhold economic assistance to the South Korean Government until certain democratic freedoms were restored. It must have struck them as very bitter that the first major Western statesman to visit South Korea following that statement should be a member of a Labour Government seeking not to withhold economic aid but to supply further arms to buttress the regime there.
I note that the recent Financial Assistance Act passed by Congress includes a clause which
prohibits the furnishing of security assistance to any foreign Government which engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognised human rights, except in exceptional circumstances justified to Congress.
I can only assume that Congress has found justified the violations that have been going on in South Korea, because the United States Government propose to continue military assistance to that country. But the fact that the American Congress is considering the insertion of such a clause in a major statute indicates growing international concern about the arms race. I hope that Britain will note the increasing international concern about this matter and will reconsider those nations with which it is prepared to trade.
The other development that has moved me to refer to this matter has been recent Press reports on arms supplies to Southern Africa. A number of hon. Members have referred to Southern Africa in the context of moving NATO activities south of the Tropic of Capricorn. The view that they take of the matter is tenable, logical and consistent. It is not one with which I agree, but it is a consistent and tenable position. What is untenable is the position that we appear in danger of adopting—namely, that we say we are against collaboration and the supply of arms to South Africa but covertly are prepared to tolerate it.
I refer in particular to the recent deal that has been concluded between Marconi and South Africa for the supply of military communications equipment. There is no secret that the communications equipment is military. Its only conceivable purpose is military, and neither Marconi nor the South African Government have denied that it is for military purposes. Electronic communications equipment does not go "bang"; it does not kill people. But it directs, guides and targets the things that do go "bang", and the person who finds himself on the receiving end will regard it as a very metaphysical distinction.
Given the fact that such sales appear to be legitimate, in terms of the guidelines, is the Minister satisfied with the state of the guidelines at present? I am not satisfied. Nor am I at all satisfied

that the degree of secrecy that surrounds our present arms trade is justified. I refer to the statement that appeared in the Sunday Times a fortnight ago reporting the creation of an exhibition at Aldershot as a special one-off job to attract orders from foreign countries. The report said that the exhibition was an extraordinarily extrovert "move on the part of the Ministry of Defence. I asked the Minister of State in a Question only last week if he would list the 70 countries that are being invited to attend this exhibition. The reply that I got was far from being extraordinarily extrovert. In fact, it was of five lines and it declined to list the 70 countries that had been invited. Seventy is a very large figure. Indeed, if one deducts the number of countries that are members of the Warsaw Pact and fellow-travellers, and one or two others that are not in the arms trade, I suspect that with half an hour in the Library one could produce the list of 70 countries that are sending representatives.
It is the almost paranoid secrecy that surrounds this matter that makes it very difficult for Parliament to exercise proper scrutiny of what is a legitimate area of public concern. That is the trouble with secrecy. It suggests to me the unworthy reflection that perhaps there is something to be hidden. Perhaps there is being invited a country that the Government would rather we did not know about. That suspicion might be totally unworthy. but it would be easier to remove it if the Minister would come out into the open on what is not a high security matter.
I therefore leave my hon. Friend with two points on this matter. First, when we had the debate on the arms trade last year, the Minister of State kindly arranged for some Members who took part in that debate to visit the permanent defence sales exhibition of the Ministry of Defence. Would it be possible for those Members who have visited the permanent exhibition also to attend the Aldershot exhibition to see what is on display there? Secondly, will my hon. Friend arrange for the Ministry seriously to consider whether the guidelines on arms exports should be revised?
The growing amount of Press and public attention to this matter in Britain reflects a very serious and deep unease at the rapid increase in our arms exports


—an unease that can be reassured only if the public are confident that there has been a thorough revision of these guidelines and that it has been carried out in the open with proper parliamentary scrutiny.

7.44 p.m.

Mr. Julian Critchley: The end of May will be the 60th anniversary of the battle of Jutland, the last great naval engagement and an opportunity that the Royal Navy let slip of final victory of the First World War.
How circumstances have changed. Sixty years ago the First Lord of the Admiralty was the second most important figure in Government. Despite the fact that the new Under-Secretary has made a jolly good speech, he has yet to be able to claim similar status.
Sixty years ago no debate on the Navy estimates would have closed at 8 p.m. with final winding-up speeches from the Front Benches because the House had run out of Members. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who says so?"] I suggest that it is likely. I do not know. However, I make the obvious comparison. If one wishes to measure our straitened circumstances, there is the comparison between the interest that we then took in the Royal Navy and that which we now take in the Royal Navy, a comparison which is almost too eloquent for comment.
I want to follow the remarks of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) and to talk about strategic nuclear weapons and their future. Before I do so, I want to make a passing reference to the Soviet Foxbat in the Mediterranean, and the mystery as to why that aeroplane is not being intercepted. I visited the NATO headquarters at Naples a fortnight ago and was told that the Foxbat, which flies higher and faster than any Allied aircraft in that theatre, makes incursions over international waters and NATO airspace very regularly indeed. Its favourite beat is the Black Sea, overlooking the shores of Anatolia, in Northern Turkey. Its rôle is surveillance—electronic spying. In the words of one officer at the NATO headquarters, it has the capability of opening NATO's mail, of listening to every communication in the Mediterranean sector. When one asks why it is not intercepted, the answer one receives is that we have no aircraft in that theatre that could do it.
However, that is not quite the whole of the story, because there is one American aircraft that has the capability to intercept the Foxbat, and that is the F14, and the F14 is flying off the USS "Enterprise". I am further told that the National Security Council in the United States has debated at great length whether the F14 should be sent up to intercept Foxbat. The Council decided against it because it felt that to do so would be to upset relations between the Soviet Union and the United States.
The question I want to put to the Minister—many of these questions are unfair because he is new to this game—is whether that decision was made with our approval. What is his reaction? Either Foxbat is of remarkable value to the Soviet Union as a spy aircraft, or it is not. How does one measure its value against the notional threat to relations between America and the Soviet Union?
So far, the F14 stays on board the "Enterprise ", and it has made no attempt to intercept the Foxbat.

Mr. Frank Hooley: Has it crossed the hon. Gentleman's mind that there might be a gentleman's agreement between the two sides to allow Foxbat to spy on NATO activities and our comparable aircraft to spy on the Russians? That would be a civilised and sensible arrangement.

Mr. Critchley: I do not know that any arrangements between NATO and the Warsaw Pact are either civilised or gentlemanly.
This year's White Paper contains one line only on the deterrent. Yet we in Europe worry about the future of the deterrent, but prefer to let the Americans talk about it. We are silent on the question of a European nuclear force, and the future of Polaris because were we to pay it attention it would highlight the inconsistencies that underlie many of Europe's defence policies. For example, the Schlesinger doctrine, adopted by the Americans as their official doctrine, emphasises the first use of strategic nuclear weapons against a Soviet attack. It calls for greater flexibility. Yet there are many people in Europe who fear lest this flexibility would weaken deterrence, but we are reluctant to say so.
Another inconsistency within Europe is that whereas we all rely upon United


States protection—the strategic nuclear guarantee—the British and French take out a little nuclear insurance on the side, in the shape of the French and the British independent nuclear forces. How do we, the Government and the Opposition, justify the Polaris force of four submarines? I believe that we can do it in two ways. We can claim that having four Polaris submarines prevents the first use of nuclear weapons on the part of the Soviet Union against this country. We might also claim that the possession of four Polaris submarines would deter a conventional attack upon the United Kingdom, or would stop it happening, once war had broken out in central Europe. Of the two justifications, I prefer the first as being more valid than the second.
The European dilemma is that whereas Americans increasingly talk of using nuclear weapons in war situation, the European powers have always relied upon the uncertainty of an American response to make deterrent work. Of course, the second of the two justifications for the British nuclear force—that it would deter a conventional attack—is an extension of the "uncertainty" argument favoured by Europeans as a whole.
The point is that the hull-life of the first Polaris submarines expires in 1989. The question we ought to pose is, what, if anything, should replace the four Polaris submarines in the 1990s? We are moving into a region where there is almost complete silence.
I believe we should stay nuclear, and I have five reasons for that view. The first is that the USSR and the Chinese might make common cause. Secondly, the United States might withdraw from Europe, and that is a more likely eventuality. Thirdly, I do not believe it to be in the United Kingdom's interest for France to remain the sole European nuclear power. Fourthly, no nuclear power has yet become a non nuclear power for nowadays, it is more difficult for a nuclear power to become non-nuclear than it is for a non-nuclear to become nuclear. Fifthly, I do not think that Europe can remain an economic super-Power indefinitely. Sooner or later she will need some sort of nuclear capability of her own.
Yet it we do stay nuclear—and the decision may already have been taken—the task of doing so may well become technologically and economically impossible unless it is carried out on a co-operative basis. But with whom do we co-operate and what form should the new independent deterrent take? Obviously a seaborne force is likely to be less vulnerable than any other system. While searching for partners we might go to the Americans and ask them for their missile system—the Trident—on the same sort of favourable terms as we were able to negotiate 15 years ago for Polaris. The Americans may be prepared to take the Kissinger view that more than one decision-making centre enhances deterrence. On the other hand, a new President, Administration and Congress might feel that to extend this weapons system to an ally would be to upset the American-Soviet relationship and détente.
This brings us to the Government's explanation in respect of the decision to ask British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. to manufacture tritium, the radio-active insotope of hydrogen, instead of relying upon the United States for its purchase. The reason is not, I submit, the one which the Government have offered—that it saves dollars. The reason is that we are uncertain about the course of future American policy and wish to guarantee our own supplies of this essential material which goes into the making of warheads. Perhaps the Civil Service is thinking about what should happen in the 1990s even if the Government are not and even if my own Front Bench has not yet got round to it.
There may be many difficulties about Anglo-American co-operation for a Polaris replacement, but what is the alternative? It could be Anglo-French co-operation, and there are small straws in the wind blowing in that direction, too. The basis of co-operaiton would be United Kingdom warheads, because we have the technology, and the delivery vehicle, which we have already constructed, linked to a French missile—the A4—which is about to go into production. The joint system might be fitted into a new generation of Polaris boats.
Such co-operation, of course, would leave in abeyance the thorny problems


of a European nuclear force, because there can be no European nuclear force without a European executive or government. It would also leave in abeyance the extent and nature of United Kingdom-French co-operation once the new force became operational —for example, surveillance from satellites for targeting, and the question of how many boats are on patrol at any given time. Future Anglo-French co-operation may well he at that level. At present the United Kingdom has four Polaris boats and the French have six missile launching submarines. It was a great pity that the Wilson Government in the mid-1960s cancelled the fifth Polaris and it is a greater pity that the Conservative Government of 1970–74 did not decide to purchase a fifth Polaris. But that is by the way.
The question is, will four British and six French boats be enough for the second generation we are talking about in the 1990s? A minimal deterrent for Europe —and we must talk in terms of a minimal deterrent—would require, in my view, 18 to 20 boats in order to extract from the USSR an equivalent price to the one Britain threatens to extract now. A Europe which remains allied to the United States, as I would hope and expect it to do, would not need a nuclear war-winning capability. Only an independent third-force Europe would need a war-winning capability along the lines of the United States' nuclear force or the Soviet nuclear force. Were we ever to discuss a European nuclear deterrent it would be a minimal one and not a maximum one.
In the meantime, the United Kingdom has to guard against any change of circumstances which might threaten the efficiency of Polaris. We have already decided not to purchase the Poseidon missile, which means that we shall not be able to fit our Polaris warheads with MIRVS because existing warheads are too small. Instead of purchasing Poseidon we have embarked on a modest warhead improvement programme, which involves some nuclear testing in the United States and which, presumably, hardens the warhead in order to improve its re-entry capability. Decoys may be added. But, we must also pay close attention to any advance which the Soviet Union might make in anti-submarine warfare, because any dramatic improve-

ment would mean that the next generation of submarines would have to be larger and capable of firing missiles of a longer range from further back.
The next year—1977—will be an important year for three reasons. Perhaps the Minister will make a note of them in the absence of his colleague. The first is that 1977 will see the five-yearly review of SALT 1, with its ABM limitations, which were of course a great gift to the British and French independent nuclear deterrents. The second reason why 1977 will be very important is that the first of the British Polaris submarines will begin her long refit, and it will be more than a year before it is completed. The question we have to ask ourselves is this: if it is difficult, although not impossible, to keep one boat on station when we have only four, shall we be able to keep one boat on station throughout 1977 when only three British Polaris boats will be operational?
The third point is that the United States Government in 1977 will phase out the last of the American Polaris submarines and their nuclear force will consist completely of Poseidon. Is the Minister—and this is the important question—confident that, once these American Polaris submarines are phased out, Britain will be able to go on receiving from Lockheed, the manufacturer of Polaris missiles, an adequate supply of missile fuel, gyros and other spare parts?
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has no taste for national disarmament, and I believe that she sees the value of Polaris as providing both insurance and self-respect, and at comparatively little cost. But has the Conservative Party thought about its replacement? I have my doubts. We should put on our thinking caps.

8.3 p.m.

Mr. Adam Hunter: I apologise for speaking in the debate, particularly as the main point that I wish to make is a narrow parochial one. However, while I realise that the immediate technique of defence is very valuable to the United Kingdom, I also realise, as Member for a constituency where there are thousands of dockyards, and therefore naval jobs, I should take part in this debate, because I feel that Rosyth dockyard has become a political


football in my constituency between certain of the political parties.
First, I mention a new entrant into that political arena, the prospective Conservative parliamentary candidate for the next General Election. Rather rashly, he said recently that the Rosyth dockyard was grossly overmanned. That was a disgraceful statement by a representative of a party which appears to stand for the establishment and full defence maintenance.
I wrote to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Royal Navy, and he assured me that, as I have already said, there was good reason for certain overmanning in Rosyth dockyard because it was feasible to hold in readiness always a certain amount of the work force for any emergency that arose.
From the social and employment points of view, it is very important that we continue to have in the area this naval presence. We have in the constituency a large dockyard, a stores depot, an armaments depot and a naval construction research establishment. We also have HMS "Caledonia", a very efficient training centre. Unfortunately, it has been decided that HMS "Caledonia" shall close in a few years' time, but we have had an assurance from the Minister that the Royal Navy will find some alternative use for this establishment.
Dunfermline and district, therefore, is highly dependent on the maintenance of the naval establishments. Indeed, they are vital to the whole economy of the area, and if they were withdrawn the economy of Dunfermline and district would be quickly strangled.
We now have another political enemy of the naval establishments—the Scottish National Party. I am sorry to see that not a single Member of the SNP has been present for the debate. The local SNP, as we call it, has been sniping and questioning about the future of Rosyth dockyard for quite a number of years. There is a new SNP candidate. She is completely new to the area. I am safe in saying that she had never seen or heard of Rosyth dockyard until two years ago. Yet she is able to say that it is fast becoming a one-ship dockyard.
We also have the SNP spokesman in this House, the hon. Member for Argyll
(Mr. MacCormick). In a defence debate last March, he said:
I feel that it is inevitable … that the Polaris base will have to be moved."—[Official Report, 31st March 1976; Vol. 908, c. 1406.]
He meant away from Rosyth. He based his argument on strategic reasons, but I believe that the true reason is one contrived to fit in with the SNP policy statement in its manifesto on nuclear bases in Scotland.
The SNP is aided and abetted in this campaign to sap the confidence of thousands of workers and their families in my constituency by a senior lecturer in the economics of defence at Strathclyde University, Dr. Gavin Kennedy, who last week was reported in my local Press to have prepared a special paper. The report was headed:
British not best for Naval Base".
The newspaper was reporting a meeting of the SNP. It said:
The vice-chairman quoted extracts from a special paper in which Dr. Kennedy argued that on the basis of evidence from public sources about Britain's strategic needs and its Defence capability, the closure of a dockyard remained a possibility, with a severe curtailment in operations in a yard as a possible alternative.
Dr. Kennedy was quoted as stating:
Rosyth is vulnerable to severe curtailment or to closure as things stand in Britain at present and as they are envisaged to develop by the Ministry of Defence up to 1980. Being British is no guarantee of Dockyard employment; quite the opposite is the case.
That same gentleman was in my constituency during the referendum campaign, when he said that there was no likelihood that the Rosyth dockyard would keep open. He repeated this statement a few weeks later. On both occasions, I wrote to the Under-Secretary of State for the Royal Navy to get reassurance again that nothing was going to happen to Rosyth dockyard for a very long time, because I have always had the assurance that there would be a full load of work in the dockyard for many years ahead. But, nothing daunted, Dr. Kennedy came back to say by implication that it could happen within 18 months' time. He has only six months to go to that deadline, and I cannot see him being proved correct in his forecast.


A letter which I have received from the Minister confirms the Government's policy. It says:
Our latest forecast shows that for many years ahead the dockyards will have a heavy programme of naval work.
I hope that the Minister in reply to the debate will refer to the point made by the hon. Member for Argyll in the House on 31st March—namely, that for strategic reasons the Rosyth dockyards may be closed. I gather the reason is that as we are in the River Forth, which is an estuary, the Russian submarines will be able to follow any ships that leave the Rosyth dockyard.
I apologise for introducing this purely parochial note into the debate. I conclude by saying that the controversy in my area has had the effect of undermining the minds and attitudes of my constituents. I hope that something will be done for the workers in the Rosyth dockyard, and I hope that the Minister will be able to give them some hope when he replies to the debate.

8.12 p.m.

Dr. Alan Glyn: I am sure that the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Hunter) will forgive me if I do not take up the arguments he deployed in regard to Rosyth dockyard. The hon. Gentleman has given a strong lead to his constituents. I am sure that he will agree with me that the defence cuts obviously will have an effect on employment. I do not wish to make a party political point, but I support the hon. Gentleman in seeking to defend the employment of his constituents.
This has been a valuable and wide-ranging debate. It has highlighted the fact that the Royal Navy still plays an important rôle in the defence of our nation and also fulfils our commitments on the situation.
I should like to say a few words that have a direct bearing on the appointment of the newly appointed Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy. It was once said that the worst Minister of Health was a politician who had been a doctor. On the contrary, I have discovered that any hon. Member who has spent time in the Services has always proved to be superior to a Minister who has not. I think that is a fair comment on the situation.
The first duty of any Government is to make provision for the defence of the nation. It is quite useless to talk about raising our standards of living and all the other desirable aims if we cannot guarantee to our people the freedom to live their lives in peace. That must be the objective of any Government. The question of how that objective is achieved on both sides of the political fence is perhaps a difference of emphasis.
I should like to refer to the situation around the coast of Iceland. That has involved the participation of a NATO ally and has shown how important is the rôle of the Royal Navy in our defence. It has also emphasised the importance of our trade routes, as was emphasised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles). Our duty, and certainly the duty of the Royal Navy, is to protect those trade routes. That is one of the most important roles to be fulfilled by the Royal Navy.
The Icelandic dispute has pointed up the difficulties of protecting our own vessels. Surely it is essential to protect our fishing vessels if they are to be allowed to carry out their fishery tasks in peace. Once the fleets are dispersed, we shall never be able to build them up again. There will be no second chance to re-form an industry that is already facing considerable financial difficulties.
This also brings to mind the important subject of the protection of oil rigs in the North Sea. That is a matter that we must consider, and it is also a matter that must be of concern to our allies, because we are becoming an oil-producing nation. A most vulnerable part of our industry finds itself in a difficult area of the ocean. I am not a seaman, but I gather that it is a difficult operation to defend the rigs. It is certainly a matter to which we should give our full attention.
A great deal has already been said about detente. Of course, by modern technology our ability to detect an enemy is considerably increased. We have had advances in radar, satellite communications, and all the rest of it. They make much easier the task of detecting our enemies. It is difficult to envisage the kind of occurrence in the early days of the war, when two German battleships were lost in the English Channel just


because we had no technology with which to find them. The weather came down and they were lost to our ships. Had we had radar at that time, they would have been detected despite the weather conditions.
I wish to ask the Minister whether we now have adequate means of detecting the movements of ships, wherever they may be, in conjunction with our NATO allies. I believe that we have not enough forces to carry out that rôle in a satisfactory manner. When we examine the Warsaw Pact strengths, we begin to realise the kind of build-up that is necessary to cope with the situation. We are all aware of the build-up of Soviet forces. It is no use referring to moves towards detente and agreements on this, that and the other. I know that the Soviet force have been built up, and it is up to us to see that we build up our forces accordingly.
Labour Members may well counter my arguments with the retort "You have on many occasions advocated reductions in expenditure". That is true, but I do not believe that we can afford to cut our defence budget. I believe that we have cut too far and that we need to increase defence expenditure. It is no use taking the view that because of our economic situation we cannot afford to increase our defence spending. We must take a hard look at the minimum requirements of our nation in terms of its defence budget. I am concerned to see that this country has a proper and adequate form of defence. If it means an increase in spending let us have it and find something else to cut.

Mr. Alan Clark: Does my hon. Friend not agree that the unemployment situation demands increased Government expenditure in this area?

Dr. Glyn: That is true, but my argument is entirely unrelated to that. It is based purely upon what the country needs by way of replacements for its defence programme. We must cost that programme and pay for it. It is true that our main commitment is with NATO. I do not believe that we can say that it is our only commitment.
It is a year since the Simonstown Agreement was abrogated. We shall find it extremely difficult to refurbish and

refit our ships. About 1,000 ships go round the Cape route every month. How do we refit those vessels? My hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Brotherton) went into details and mentioned the other countries in the area, none of which were friendly. We cannot rely upon them in the event of war. There will be no way in which to refit our ships. Yet the danger has in no way lessened. If anything, it has increased.
In the Mediterranean there is cause for concern. There is an enormous build-up of Soviet naval power. We are unable to compete with the magnitude of those forces. Further East, I am sad to see the SEATO agreement shattered. Our presence in that area is still required. We owe obligations to many parts of the world and it is our duty to fulfil them. We see the Soviet strength increasing year by year. This must be worrying to us all.
China has been slow to begin its development of atomic weapons but is gradually building up its programme. The distance over which these missiles can be fired is increasing, and with it the dangers. I have frequently mentioned the danger of Russia and China uniting their atomic forces or, alternatively, of those two powers clashing. The Chinese are equally aware of their long frontier and realise that they are, to some extent, dependent on their nuclear deterrent. With a population of about 900 million they are not so dependent as a small island of 50 million people.
Everyone wants peace, but until such time as we are satisfied that we have an arms limitation agreement that will work we have to ensure that we have sufficient military strength. What shall we do when Polaris becomes out of date and it is difficult to get spares? Perhaps America will withdraw from Europe. We shall lose one of our most important weapons. This is principally a weapon of defence, which enables us to say to a potential aggressor "If you seek to attack us we have the ability to create such damage as to make your attack not worth while".
There must be a completely new appraisal of our requirements, particularly in naval defence. How much will it cost? We must find that out and persuade people to pay for what they need. What nuclear force is required not in the next two or three years but in the next 20


years? These things take time to build up. If we are to find ourselves short of spares and deprived of supplies from the United States we must prepare for such eventualities. We have a duty not only to protect our people and give them a sense of security but to ensure that our trade routes throughout the world are properly protected. We must have sufficient ships to do this job.
I pay the highest tribute to the Navy for the difficult job that it is carrying out in the cod war. I hope that the Under-Secretary will deal with the question that I put to him in an intervention. What happens when a confrontation is near in the cod war? Does a commander have to take his orders from the political chief, or does he take action on the spot and then carry the can back? Is the Minister satisfied that the vessels engaged in the cod war are of the right type and that the commanders have the authority to do what they believe to be right?

8.26 p.m.

Mr. Frank Hooley: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy—who has had to leave the Chamber briefly—on his new appointment. I am sorry that I was not present to hear his first speech from the Dispatch Box, but I was acting as Chairman of a Select Committee.
In the past 25 years mankind has suddenly become vividly aware of the enormous wealth that lies beneath the sea. This wealth is of incredible proportions. I am indebted to a book written by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Luard) for some of the figures which I shall give, which have been drawn from international sources. On the sea bed there are objects called manganese nodules, small lumps of metallic ore which extend over a vast area of the sea bed in the Pacific and other oceans. The estimate of the content of these nodules has been put at 16 billion tons of nickel, 8 billion tons of copper, 10 billion tons of titanium, 25 billion tons of magnesium and similar quantities of other extremely valuable metals.
This wealth is building up at the rate of about 10 million tons annually. We know that under the sea bed there are trillions of cubic feet of gas and millions of tons of oil. We are busily exploiting these resources round out own shores.

The wealth of fish in the sea is being exploited at a rate never before known —70 million tons a year—providing a revenue of $10 billion. There are minerals from sea water such as salt, magnesium bromine and potassium sodium. Sand, gravel, and, in some parts of the world, tin, can be extracted from the sea bed, and there are other resources of the sea.
It is probably in the light of these discoveries, which are adequately proved scientifically and technically, that the nations of the world have gathered in the biggest international conference ever held by mankind—the Law of the Sea Conference, now in its fourth session in New York. It is fairly certain that two decisions will emerge from that conference relating to the rights of coastal States over the sea and the sea bed. The first is an agreement on a 12-mile territorial sea, over which this country and other coastal States will have sovereign jurisdiction, subject to the right of innocent passage of shipping. The second is a 200-mile exclusive economic zone, where the countries concerned will be permitted to exploit the wealth on the sea bed and beneath it over that enormous area. Although these are not formal agreements yet, most experienced commentators, I think, believe that these two features will almost certainly emerge as general international agreements in the next two or three years.
In the light of these trends, international and scientific, one would imagine that the United Kingdom, with its great maritime tradition and its proportionately long coast and immense interests in seafaring, would have strengthened those institutions, particularly those within the control of the Royal Navy, which might in future enable us to benefit from the resources in the sea and from international agreements which permit us access to them.
In particular, one might have supposed that the Hydrographer, the surveyor of the seas, would have had his hand strengthened and his facilities improved and increased in the light of the opportunities which will clearly lie ahead of this country and others. The Hydrographer has an immense and deservedly high reputation not only here but worldwide. One hon. Member opposite talked nostalgically of 60 years ago and the battle of Jutland. I understand that the


Hydrographer's services extend back more than 150 years, long before the dreadnoughts were thought of..
The Hydrographer is responsible for surveying the seas not only in our home waters but as far afield as the West Indies, the Pacific, the Persian Gulf and virtually all around the world. I understand that this country is one of only six which produce a series of charts purporting to cover virtually all the seas of the world. These charts and this work are of vital importance, but there is a civil application, too.
I should like to quote from the study published by the Hydrographic Study Group, on page 2 of the appendix:
Charts serve two primary uses:

(a) as navigational tools for the RN and Merchant Marine, as well as for minor users such as fishermen and yachtsmen;
(b) as information documents for oilmen, engineers, lawyers, oceanographers, public authorities, etc. Admiralty charts have always been the authority for coastal and offshore detail in United Kingdom territorial waters, their rôle being comparable to that of Ordnance Survey maps."

Thus, apart from the great importance of the work of the Hydrographer to the Navy, his work has great relevance to a wide range of other activities.
Unfortunately, the future of this great and distinguished service has now become the subject of a squalid departmental Whitehall squabble about who should pay for it. It is staggering to reflect that, although in 1973–74 the capital and revenue cost of the service was £14·6 million, in the current financial year, 1976–77, the expenditure will be £11·9 million. In other words, there has been a fall of between 20 and 25 per cent. in expenditure on this service at constant 1975 prices, at a time when the whole world, not just the United Kingdom, is becoming more concerned about and interested in the enormous economic possibilities in and beneath the seas.
The Statement on the Defence Estimates, which runs to 111 pages, could find only one minor paragraph for this matter. The essential sentence in paragraph 59 reads:
The recommendations of a study group which was set up in July 1974 to assess the future civil and military requirements for hydrographic effort and to look at possible sources of funding are now being considered.

In a debate on 19th December last year, the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann), in whose constituency the Hydrographer's headquarters is situated, made an excellent speech asking for the Government's intentions on the future of the Hydrographic Service and what was to be done to strengthen and develop it. All that he got in reply from the then Under-Secretary for Defence for the Royal Navy, my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Judd), was:
We shall…be taking decisions just as soon as we can."—[Official Report. 19th December 1975; Vol. 902, c. 2018.]
I put down a Question a little while ago and received a reply on 8th April. It was:
We still have to complete our consideration of the Hydrographic Study Group's report"— [Official Report. 8th April 1976; Vol. 909, c. 285.]
This report was commissioned in July 1974. It was published on 27th March 1975. But even before that, in July 1974, the Select Committee on Science and Technology was making a special study into offshore engineering and related problems of North Sea oil and gas. It paid some attention to the Hydrographer and his work. The Report of the Select Committee was published nearly two years ago, on 25th July 1974.
It is interesting to note, especially for me, since I was and am a member of the Committee, that paragraph 119 of the report said:
We were disturbed by the Evidence given to us by the Assistant Director, Naval Division, Hydrographer of the Navy on the absence of up to date charts for many areas of the UK Continental Shelf. Substantial areas have never been properly surveyed or were surveyed by lead and line over a hundred years ago.…We believe that there is serious risk of accident unless urgent action is taken. We recommend that immediate provision should be made for a substantial increase of ships and equipment for surveying the Continental Shelf.
The report went on to talk about the problems and dangers to navigation if chunks of machinery and bits of oil rigs and so forth were left around in the North Sea:
…until recently there was no responsibility for anyone to report when they abandoned, either temporarily or permanently a wellhead. We have found instances of some being abandoned and sticking forty-six feet from the sea bed, about which we know nothing…We understand that the permanent or temporary abandonment of wells should be notified to


the Department of Energy and that the Department of Trade…requires that the Hydrographer of the Navy be advised of the nature of any obstruction which is to remain on the sea bed.
We were given to understand, in other words, that the Hydrographer, quite apart from his long traditional one and a half century duties of surveying and charting which have been done so splendidly for such a long time, now had extra duties of, as it were, policing bits and pieces left strewn around in the North Sea in our quest for oil.
We have a situation in which the Select Committee on Science and Technology reported on the importance of this matter in July 1974, the special study group was set up, presumably by the Secretary of State for Defence, in July 1974, the study group produced its report in March 1975, there was a debate in this House on the subject in December 1975, there is now a debate on defence in May 1976, and nothing is being done about the Hydrographic Service. What is more, there is still this silly, squalid little squabble going on in Whitehall between umpteen Departments because the Navy wants its servant to do his job but does not want to pay his wages and provide him with the necessary equipment.
This is not purely a matter of defence. I have a list of the Government Departments which are involved, one way or another, in the work of the Hydrographer. The list is in a Written Reply from my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North. He said:
The services of the hydrographer are used to a greater or lesser extent by a number of Government Departments, including the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Home Office, Department of the Environment, Department of Energy, Department of Health and Social Security, Department of Trade, Scottish Office. Welsh Office, Northern Ireland Office, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Department of Education and Science and Ministry of Overseas Development."— [Official Report, 8th April 1976; Vol. 909, c. 284.]
Yet many of those Departments, each of which are quibbling over sums of £500 million or £600 million for this or that, cannot cough up a few million pounds for this important and vital service. It is not as if we do not have specific, clear and detailed recommendations about what should be done.
I have referred to the report commissioned in 1974 and published in 1975. I do not wish to weary the House with all the detailed recommendations, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister is aware of them, but, basically, there are two possibilities. The report suggests that to carry out the hydrographic service efficiently will cost another £30 million over seven years. That sum would be for specialist survey ships. An extra £18 million over seven years will be required for supporting staff and equipment. A more interesting suggestion made in the report, which I hope the Government will take seriously, is the idea that the services of the Hydrographer be split from the Defence Vote and carried on a separate Vote in the same way as the national meteorological services are separately financed.
If that suggestion were accepted them. would be no more squabbling in the Ministry of Defence about how much should he paid for the service. The Ministry strongly objects to the idea of a separate Vote or separate control but it is not itself prepared to pay for an adequate service. It wants to keep control and to keep this important service in its own hands for understandable reasons. Its services are important to NATO but the Ministry does not want to pay for it. It wants some other Department to pay.
The Secretary of State for Defence and his colleagues must make up their minds. If they want the service to be expanded and developed they must be prepared to pay for it. If they do not want to pay out the money, they should agree to use the service and agree to separate financial accountability. It is absolute madness to ignore this splendid service, which commands high admiration in this country and abroad and which could be the focus of work not only for the United Kingdom but throughout the United Nations.
If the debate produces no other result, I hope that it will result in the Secretary of State and other Defence Ministers paying urgent attention to the problem which has been on the stocks for nearly two years. I hope that something will be done

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Alan Clark: am glad to follow the hon. Member for


Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley). Although I listened with great interest to the speech of the Minister and most of the other speeches, if I had not heard the hon. Gentleman I should have said that all the speeches in the debate had followed the usual course of more or less ritual acceptance of the Soviet threat and then declarations, depending on which side of the Chamber one sat, about the possible need for more or less expenditure on the Royal Navy. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on a thoughtful and most important contribution on a subject that has been totally neglected but that is fundamental to the country's future wealth and well-being.
What make the subject of the Royal Navy quite different in both status and quality from the subject of its two sister Services are the following three fundamental truths: first, it is the most important of the Services. It is the last custodian of the country's freedom from starvation or occupation. It is the first trip-wire or safeguard in sub-threshold conflicts, in infringements of our sovereignty or of our dependencies, our offshore installations, fishing fleets or whatever, in any local action against our shores. The Royal Navy has the enormous dual importance of being both our first and our last line of defence.
Secondly, of all the Services, the Royal Navy has been the most seriously disabled, distorted and unbalanced by successive economies, design failures, delays and indecisions in weaponry.
Thirdly, because of that imbalance and the unsuitability of much of its equipment, the Royal Navy is less able than either of its sister Services to carry out the tasks with which it may be charged. It is neither cost-effective nor combat-effective. Of course, to some extent these failings may be disguised by the quality, dedication and standard of training of the crews. But the traditional naval complaint with which the Minister, as an ex-Navy man, may be familiar—the long-held contention about "Iron Men in Wooden Ships" has never been truer than it is today.
It is nearly two years since I asserted in this Chamber that not one vessel in the Royal Navy was capable of conducting a surface engagement. It is possible that today there are five. The Minister

will correct me if I am wrong. No vessel constructed since 1955 has armour capable of resisting—to take the lowest common denominator—twin oerlikons on an Angolan gunboat. Its magazine would be penetrated.
Tables of relative strengths are exceedingly misleading. They do not show that of the total surface strength of the Royal Navy only five ships are equipped with surface-to-surface missiles—of French design—and that no fewer than 52 in the Soviet Navy are equipped with equivalent, or in many cases superior, surface-to-surface weaponry. It is a fact that all the other vessels, all the expensive and complicated frigates, would at close quarters be torn to pieces by a K-class destroyer of World War II vintage.
If one may express this disparity in terms of explosive power—my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) mentioned the Battle of Jutland, so we will express it in terms of Jutland—we have at the moment in the Royal Navy the equivalent of one Queen Elizabeth class battleship firing 15-in. shells—with a much greater range, of course—while the Soviet Navy has the equivalent of 42 Queen Elizabeth class battleships. Therefore, the possibility of the Royal Navy considering a surface engagement with other ships, or even with gunboats or the particular weaponry of emergent nations, is very limited.
What sort of action is the Royal Navy equipped for? Is it convoy protection? There are far too few vessels adequately to institute a convoy protection system. In the Admiralty the possibility of instituting convoy protection for ships bringing supplies from America to Europe, as in the First World War has been more or less discarded. One has only to consider the argument of Admiral Gorshkov, on the ratio of ASW to submarine activity, to realise that it would be wasteful and pointless to institute a convoy protection system in the old manner.
Is the Royal Navy equipped to conduct an opposed landing in hostile territory? Plainly it is not. It is lacking in both air support and Commando or close support vessels. Is it equipped to conduct a search-and-destroy operation against raiders in distant oceans? I doubt it. Its vessels do not have the speed, the air support. the endurance, or the back-up


from the Royal fleet auxiliary to make this possible.
Is the Royal Navy Suitably equipped to protect our fishing fleets? The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr Johnson) illustrated this well in his argument. At present the Navy is trying to protect the fishing fleet with expensive vessels designed for totally different purposes. We do not have economic and efficient means of protecting our fishing fleets. This may be disguished to some extent by the skill and dedication of the crews, but it remains a fundamental fact. The same is true of the Navy's ability to protect our offshore installations. We do not have the proper equipment to do this economically, efficiently or effectively.
The defence White Paper says that the prime purpose of the Royal Navy is to co-operate in NATO, but in view of these deficiencies one might well ask "To co-operate in doing what?" The fact is that the imbalance in the Royal Navy reflects a continuous series of stop-start-cut compromises and, of course, financial stringency. The ships themselves are, or should be, the tools with which we implement our new maritime strategies, but the fact that they are defective, as I believe they are, shows that either the Admiralty is confused about its strategy or, more likely, the directions that it receives from the Ministry of Defence are inconsistent and occasionally contradictory.
One gets the impression that there are just these periodic panic cuts, ending up in a deal with the admirals in which they agree not to resign en masse if they are allowed a few extra 21 or 42 Type frigates, or whatever. Each successive confrontation between the Treasury and the Admiralty, each concession and compromise, alters the bias in the development of the Navy and magnifies these distortions. The result is that compared with the ships of our enemies, or even of our allies, such as the French and the Germans, the vessels of the Royal Navy are all-purpose millionaire's yachts, under-armed and under-armoured, with curiously high freeboards, and with amenities aimed mainly, it would seem, at providing material for recruiting posters.
In my experience and that of my constituents in the Royal Navy, men are not induced to Join the Service, and do not

derive their maximum pride in it, from the various air-conditioned squash courts and other items with which our ships are equipped. They would prefer that when they put in at a foreign port those who visit them are prompted to admire the fierce line and the profusion of weaponry which is so apparent in the Soviet ships when they—sometimes simultaneously with ours—pay courtesy visits.
Service men enlist, fortunately, not for amenities, air conditioning and piped sound in their cabins, but from a kind of martial ardour, with a pride in having the finest equipment, and because their ships are admired for their obvious superiority. It is a mistake to believe that the men can be sent out on expeditions to paint old people's homes as a substitute for this pride. Essentially, the enlisted man in the Royal Navy is first attracted by and takes a pride in the efficiency and effectiveness of the ships and their formidable armament.
I do not necessarily ask for greater expenditure, although I would welcome that. I recommend a radical and intelligent rethink of the Navy's design requirements, which have for too long been distorted by compromise and stringency.
The cure is in our own hands and in our yards. In recommending the through-deck cruisers, the Minister described the comprehensive weapons systems on these vessels. He said that it was desirable that all these systems should be housed in one hull. Anyone can see that that makes a vessel that much more vulnerable. As if to discount vulnerability, the Minister said that it was very much cheaper to do that than to have a multitude of smaller vessels.
The figures do not bear that out. It we were to adopt the Harrier carrier, which is designed to frigate specifications in size—5,000 tons with a complement of 250 men—we could have four such vessels for a smaller crew complement than one through-deck cruiser. I have argued the case for the through-deck cruiser, but I am doubtful whether it can still be sustained with the advances in technology and with the overhang of financial menace that threatens the programme, together with the obvious possibility of achieving the same results with smaller, more economic and more easily dispersed vessels.
I fear that if we continue to attach importance to the through-deck cruisers, we may find in later years that they are either cancelled or allowed to lag severely, whereas if we had the strength of mind to approach the re-designing and re-equipment of the Navy in a new context, we could have a much more effective means of giving air support and covering the gap in the eastern Atlantic with a multitude of Harrier carriers than with one or two highly complex, expensive and probably long-delayed through-deck cruisers.
The remedy is in our own hands. We are now making for the Governments of Egypt and Nigeria gunboats and fast patrol boats which would be exceptionally well-suited to the protection of our offshore installations. The design that came before the Select Committee was totally inappropriate, and the vessel would have been slow and cumbersome.
Three years ago, one of our foremost naval experts said, about the equipment of the Navy:
It is difficult to imagine that any country over a period of time has ever spent so much money on its defence to see so little effect.
In relation to the equipment of the Navy, that is even truer today than it was three years ago. The only remedy is for the equipment of the Navy, the design of ships, and long-term budgeting to be taken out of the incessant arguments that the design staff at the Admiralty can undertake long-term programmes suited to between the two parties in the House, so our present needs.

9.3 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wall: I start by joining those hon. Members from both sides of the House who have congratulated the Minister on his appointment. I was interested to hear him say that he served in the early part of the war on HMS "Iron Duke". I was the gunnery officer of that ship at about that time. Perhaps we can call ourselves "old ships'.' I shall be making some harsh, though justified, criticisms, but the Minister has just taken office and cannot be held responsible. My remarks are not directed at him.
I must also admit that the Secretary of State has done his best against the neo-Marxists who normally sit below the Gangway and who seem to be seeking

the abolition of all our Forces. Unfortunately the right hon. Gentleman's best is not good enough, and the Government as a whole stand indicted. The Defence Review appears to have been written by two people—one who accurately assesses the threat to this country and NATO and another who attempts to make a case for decreasing, rather than increasing, the size of our Navy.
We have heard quite a lot about the figures on page 6, showing the ratio between the ships available to NATO in the North-East Atlantic and those of the Soviet Northern Fleet. We have seen that, compared with 1975–76, that threat is increasing. The ratio of surface ships has increased from 1:1·7 to 1:2. The ratio for submarines has increased from 1:1·6 to 1:1·7. The aircraft ratio has remained the same—namely,1:1·5. However, the Backfire bomber has come into service in the Soviet maritime forces. That has greatly increased the air threat.
My complaint about the table is that it leaves out the vital question. It does not give the vital comparison, the comparison that that only just enabled us to win the Battle of the Atlantic in the Second World War. The comparison between Soviet submarines and our anti-submarine forces. The White Paper shows that there are 46 British escort vessels to 180 Soviet submarines in the Northern Fleet. That is a ratio of one ASW to four submarines.
The House will say that we are not fighting the Soviet Union, and that we have NATO behind us. All right, let us take the relationship between NATO's anti-submarine forces world-wide and the Soviet submarine fleet world-wide. This shows a ratio of two anti-submarine vessels to one Soviet submarine. In World War II, when we were nearly brought to our knees by the submarines, the ratio was six anti-submarine vessels to one German U-boat. The U-boats were the old type of submarine, which had to come to the surface at night to recharge its batteries. Today we are dealing with nuclear submarines which can go around the oceans of the earth without the need to surface. One can well imagine the staggering losses that they could inflict upon us.
The White Paper tells us in page 5 that there are 330 Soviet submarines, of


which 130 are nuclear, and that the West as a whole is being out-built by the Soviets by 2:1. In other words, the menace is getting worse. The White Paper tells us that the Russians have built the "Kiev" and her sister aircraft carrier, and that possibly even a third is now being built. That is taking place at a time when we have scrapped all our aircraft carriers except HMS "Ark Royal" But the White Paper does not tell us about the "Kara" cruisers and the "Krivak" destroyers—the world's most heavily armed surface ships.
The White Paper does not tell us how we shall protect the 3,300 ships that are at sea on one day in the Atlantic alone, leaving aside the Mediterranean, and the ships that are in port on both sides of the Atlantic. It does not tell us how we shall prevent the staggering losses that we would be hound to suffer in the early stages of any war in bringing reinforcements from Canada and the United States, and in bringing oil from the Middle East round the Cape of Good Hope.
That is the threat, but what do the Government do in face of it? The Government cut our defence budget by £4,500 million last year, followed by a cut of £110 million, followed by a further cut of £534 million this year. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mr. Gilmour) said, that is over £6,000 million in terms of present inflated prices. My right hon. Friend referred to a report in today's Guardian that a Labour Party working party wants another £1,000 million to be cut by 1980.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Hear, hear.

Mr. Wall: The hon. Member for Keighley;Mr. Cryer) says "Hear, hear". He is the sort of person who wants to abolish our Forces altogether, the sort of person I was referring to when I spoke of the neo-Marxists below the Gangway.

Mr. Cryer: Nonsense.

Mr. Wall: Such cuts reduce the very forces on which NATO depends more than any others, namely, the antisubmarine forces. It removes at a stroke a total of nine destroyers and frigates. It cuts our anti-submarine warfare aircraft —the Nimrods—which are already in short supply. II cuts our mine counter

measure vessels when we well know that the Soviet Union has an historic record of mine laying. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) pointed out, probably it knows more about mine laying than does any other country in the world. It cuts our amphibious forces, our scarce helicopters and our only heavy-lift aircraft—namely. the Belfast.
Why is this being done'? It is not that the Government do not notice the danger that is set out in the White Paper it is not because of the futile argument that has been used in the past that our Allies spend less per head on defence than we do, and that we should spend less than them. The Government make these cuts because they want to maintain a greater expenditure en the social services, education and health than on defence. In recent years those three services have been costing the country more than defence.
If the threat is not met, there will be no social services, no education, and no National Health Service. In fact, the Secretary of State's predecessor—the present Chancellor of the Exchequer—said that we would have only a heap of cinders. Hon. Gentlemen must appreciate that point when they encourage the Government to go on cutting our forces.
We have been told the truth by a Russian who has seen both sides of the question. He said:
Modern society is hypnotised by socialism, it is prevented by socialism from seeing the mortal danger it is in. And one of the greatest dangers of all is that you have lost all sense of danger. You cannot even see where it is coming from as it moves swiftly towards you".
I think that we owe a lot to Alexander Solzhenitsyn. Luckily, the British people are beginning to realise the danger, thanks mainly to the repeated warnings by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition.
I turn now to the Royal Navy. I congratulate the Secretary of State, as I did last year, on his order for HMS "Invincible" and on the building of the Sea Harrier. I would press the Minister to tell us when the order for the second ship will be placed. Earlier he said that it would be placed in the near future. It seems surprising that in a debate on the Royal Navy he cannot be more precise.


However, the hon. Gentleman said that a third vessel would be ordered. We hope that the order will be placed soon, because HMS "Invincible" is two years late in building.
Who will fly the Sea Harriers? Will it be Royal Navy pilots? If so, where will they do their fixed-wing training? Is it intended that some will be flown by the RAF? That question has not yet been answered. I hope that Royal Navy fixed wing pilots will fly the Sea Harriers. Will the Minister assure us about that matter?
HMS "Invincible" and the other ships, when available, will greatly help our antisubmarine forces. I remind the House that this year our anti-submarine forces have been cut by one destroyer, two frigates and two mine counter-measure ships. The Minister said that we were maintaining the forces, more or less, or words to that effect. I suggest that it is less these five important ships in this year alone.
I can understand that when the Government want to make cuts and to save money they should delay the building programme. What I cannot understand is why they should scrap a modern ship, HMS "Hampshire", which is only 13 years old. She is a modern guided missile destroyer, which has seven sister ships in the operational fleet. Why suddenly scrap a ship like that?
Again, why scrap modern conventional submarines? Two—the "Rorqual" and "Grampus"—have been scrapped, and they were built only in 1958. Is it true that every time a new nuclear hunter-killer submarine is launched, one conventional submarine is scrapped? According to the White Paper, we have only three Polaris, seven nuclear, and 13 conventional submarines in service—a total of 23. Ten years ago we had double that number—46.
If the Government want to save money, I suggest that they should concentrate on the smaller ships. As has been pointed out, these are valuable for the training of naval officers. Not long ago we had over 80 coastal minesweepers. Today, we have just over 30. Since 1960 we have built only one small warship and three fast target boats, and two mine warfare ships have been ordered. I leave aside the

Kingfisher and Island classes, to which I shall refer later.
Before the last world war we led the world in fast patrol boats. These boats are of far more value today than in the 1930s, because of the missiles with which they can be armed. They can now pack real punch and sink major ships. Why do we not concentrate on building more of these fast patrol boats, which cost far less than the frigates that we have been discussing?
I turn now to the problem of North Sea oil. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate criticised the building of the Kingfisher and Island class ships, which he said were designed to protect North Sea oil rigs. There are four Kingfishers, each of 190 tons, with a speed of 16 knots, and built at a cost of £500,000. Yet British yards are turning out for Mexico a class of ship—the "Azteca"— of 130 tons, a speed of 24 knots, and at the same price as the Kingfisher class ships. About 10 of these vessels have been delivered to Mexico. The repeat order will be for a different class of ship —the Osprey class—which will be capable of 32 knots, will be armed with missiles, and will cost about £1,750,000, which is about twice what I imagine the Kingfisher class will cost now because of inflation. The cost must have escalated to about £1 million.
I can understand that we need a policeman, as it were, on the beat, for the oil rigs, always to maintain patrols in bad weather; but we also need quick reaction forces. I should have thought that we should not order any more Kingfishers or, for that matter, any more of the Island class, but should concentrate on fast patrol boats so that we can have a quick reaction capability. We need both types of vessel.
As regards oil protection duties, which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. Mallalieu), the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) and my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn), we must realise that NATO takes over the protection of North Sea oil rigs in time of war. But what happens in time of peace? I think that the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East was absolutely right in saying that we have to get tighter control. There ought to be centralised


control under the Admiralty. We should also have agreements with the other countries that are interested, such as Norway, so that we can have a combined protection force and thereby save money. Discussions are going on, but I doubt whether the Minister will be able to tell us anything about them this evening. However, this matter is of fundamental importance. We need both national and international co-ordination in the protection of North Sea oil.
As for the cod war, which was referred to by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson) and by my hon. Friends the Members for Louth (Mr. Brotherton) and Windsor and Maidenhead we must realise that the gunboats that the Icelanders use are designed for Arctic waters. They are built of plates of steel that are about 2 in. thick. Our frigates, on the other hand, are built for anti-submarine purposes. They are fast and thin-skinned. Therefore, when they are deliberately rammed—and I agree with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West that they are deliberately rammed from time to time—they suffer severe damage. I am told that out of the 16 available frigates, 12 have been damaged. That is obviously a serious matter.
What I want particularly to ask the Minister is this: two weeks ago the frigates stopped protecting our trawlers. By that I mean that in the past the frigates had interposed themselves between the gunboats and the trawlers whose warps the gunboats were trying to cut. Suddenly, for two weeks, this no longer happened. The frigates signalled the trawlers, saying "Look out. Gunboat coming up your stern". Nothing else happened. This must have been done by order from the Ministry of Defence. I should like to know whether that was so. Above all, if there was this order, why was the fishing industry not informed? Obviously this did the reputation of the Royal Navy no good. There is certainly no blame attached to the Navy. The Government must take the blame. The fishing industry kicked up a fuss and said "If we are not to be protected, we are coming out of these waters", and the Minister sent out three more frigates.
This whole incident did the country a disservice. It was unfair on the industry, and we ought to have a full explanation.

Since the frigates have returned, there has been little warp cutting, and the protection has been first-class.
As for the boarding party incident, I understand from the tape that the matter has now been resolved by a Nimrod aircraft, which circled around the trawler and told the gunboat to go and behave itself, and the gunboat actually went off. This is highly satisfactory, and shows good maritime co-operation between the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force. It also shows the importance of the Nimrod aircraft, which has suffered a cut in the Government's programme. I hope that the Minister will give a full explanation of this important incident, in which shots were fired at our trawlers.
If any Icelandic gunboat crew attempted to board a Hull trawler, I am damned certain that they would be met with steam hoses, water hoses and every missile that could be thrown at them. I do not think that they would get aboard.
I turn to the northern flank. I think that the House knows that the key NATO requirement, as far as Britain is concerned, is the rapid reinforcement of Norway, Iceland and the Faroes. This is to be achieved by our amphibious forces. I want to take the House to last year's White Paper. On page 11 it talked about our amphibious forces and said that we had a brigade headquarters and four Commando groups. It was said that this force would be cut to three Commando groups, of which one would be specially trained for the Arctic. We had four, and this was to be cut to three.
On page 17 of this year's White Paper the Minister says that thanks to NATO's pressure he has agreed to four additional measures. The first is the
allocation of two additional Commando groups, together with a brigade headquarters and a logistic regiment for deployment in support of specific NATO plans".
Reading that at first sight it seems that four is cut to three and that with an additional two the total is five. But, of course, this is not so. What has happened is that of the four Commando groups one was specially trained in snow and arctic warfare, another was stationed in Malta, and two were allocated to the southern flank. What the Minister has done is withdraw from the southern flank in order to increase the total on the northern flank. There has not been an


increase; rather there has been a reduction by one Commando group.
In this respect I refer to a pamphlet on defence produced by the Greater London Young Conservatives Defence Study Group. In speaking about the Royal Marines and Norway it says:
The Royal Marines pose important questions—perhaps the value of a flexible commando unit (in terms of value for money) has been seriously underestimated.
It recommends that
Britain must retain her ability through strong seaborne and airmobile reserves to reinforce rapidly either Norway or the Mediterranean sector; helicopters and Commando ships are required for this.
I am sure that those recommendations would be endorsed by this side of the House.
That brings me to the need for a rapid reinforcement. In the past for reinforcement to Norway we had two aircraft carriers, "Ark Royal" and "Eagle", two Commando carriers, "Hermes" and "Bulwark", and two assault ships "Fearless" and "Intrepid". Now we have only "Ark Royal". There is no Commando carrier, because "Hermes" has been converted into an anti-submarine carrier and will not be available for this kind of operation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Louth so forcefully pointed out, the helicopter lift for the Royal Marines has been reduced by 50 per cent. There is now no deck to lift them from. The Minister knows that the essence of the Royal Marine Commando technique is that it is helicopter borne. But their total lift has been reduced by 50 per cent. and this creates serious problems for NATO.
I am glad to see that "Bulwark" is not to be scrapped. I gather that she will be laid up. If so, will she be assigned to NATO? If she is at one or two months' notice, I shall be very much happier, because it means that despite any future Socialist desires for cuts they cannot scrap this vessel.
Several hon. Members talked about the use of merchant ships and train ferries to get these Commandos to Norway. I would not emphasise this point, because it has been made strongly enough already. I would only remind the Minister that the NATO Commander-

in-Chief in Northern Europe has protested most strongly about the reduction in our amphibious forces, and in this he is absolutely right. The Government are heading towards a repetition of the shambles of the Norwegian campaign in the last war.
Mention has already been made about the withdrawal of the Royal Navy from the Mediterranean by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles). My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley), with his experience as Chairman of the WEU Defence Committee, talked about the Foxbat problem which, again, is undermining NATO strength in that part of the world.
I would like to move quickly to equipment. It was a Labour Government's White Paper in the 1960s which spoke of the Fleet submarines as the capital ship of the future. But this capital ship is still equipped with World War II torpedoes. The Government have said they are hoping it will be possible to procure the US Sub-Harpoon, and to scrap the British equivalent, Hawker Siddeley USGW. I agree that the Sub-Harpoon is an excellent weapon, but it is a most extraordinary way to conduct negotiations with an ally to buy one of its weapons by scrapping one's own weapon before negotiating the price. This is a crazy thing to do, particularly, knowing that the Americans are so good at salesmanship. I ask the Minister how these negotiations are proceeding, and when this weapon will be available at sea.
Two British weapon systems are going ahead. There is Sea Skua with the Lynx helicopter. We would like to know more about the progress on this weapon and also the Sea Wolf, referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger).
Sea Wolf is an anti-missile missile—the only one existing in the world. What are the Government doing to see that it is sold to our allies? I have recently been to the United States, and I know that the Americans are just starting a project definition study for an antimissile missile. We are well placed. We should say to them. "If we are to buy Sub-Harpoon, you can buy Sea Wolf. If we are to buy AWACS. you can buy Sea Harriers". Sea Wolf is a world beating weapon. and I hope that it will


be sold to our Allies. The Americans understand that sort of talk. Page 32 of the White Paper shows that we spend 62 per cent. of our available money on manpower and only 38 per cent. on hardware, whereas the Soviet Union spends 20 per cent. on manpower and 80 per cent. on hardware. We cannot afford to economise on research, but we should be able to do so on manpower, particularly civilian manpower. Yet page 57 of the White Paper shows that the amount spent on research next year will be reduced to £107 million—less than what the Government gave to bail out Chrysler. The Minister seemed to Indicate on 31st March that research would be cut by a further 10 per cent. Yet the one area in which we lead the Soviet Union is in advanced technology. It is a false economy to cut research expenditure in this manner.
So far as manpower is concerned, 10 years ago we had 102 Service men for every 100 civilians in support. Today, the ratio has barely changed, to 108 Service men to every 100 civilians in support, yet the Fleet has been reduced by 50 per cent. I hope that the Minister will concentrate on the Ministry of Defence, with its 16,000 employees. The labour force in the dockyards has been increased by 900 this year. If we are to cut, let us cut the tail, as I believe the Secretary of State intends, not the teeth.
However, there is sometimes a danger in cutting the tail too much, particularly as far as fuel supply is concerned. Everyone who has seen a torpedoed tanker blazing will know what I mean. Page 27 of the White Paper says that a number of naval support depots will be closed and that there will be a reduction of fuel and stock purchases. One example of this is at Pembroke. There, as part of an oil pontoon, lies the hull of HMS "Warrior", as famous in her way as HMS "Victory" or HMS "Dreadnought". She was our first iron-hulled seagoing armoured ship. She is 166 years old, but the hull is in good condition. I hope that the Minister will give an undertaking that whatever happens to the oil fuel depot the hull will be preserved until money can be raised to refit this famous ship, which is part of our naval heritage.
I end where I started. I believe that the Western world faces its greatest

threat since the 1930s. With nuclear stalemate in Europe, this threat lies at sea. The Soviet Navy has increased by 700 per cent. since 1963. Its new missile submarines can cover the whole of Europe, North America and China from the Barents Sea with missiles with ranges of over 4,500 miles.
The Government's policy is to concentrate all our naval forces in the North-East Atlantic. Let them ask themselves where our fuel, food and minerals come from. They will find that far the largest percentage comes round the Cape of Good Hope. Yet Aden, Simonstown, Singapore, Mauritius and Gan have in turn been surrendered by successive Socialist Governments. Aden is now used by Russian aircraft. What assurance has the Minister that the airfield at Gan—we have left a magnificent aerodrome there—will not be used by Russian aircraft, which would extend Soviet surveillance over the southern Indian Ocean? I hope that proper arrangements have been made to see that that does not happen.
As has been pointed out, the Soviet Navy has increased its presence in the Indian Ocean year by year—threefold in the past four years. It has now installed SAM batteries in Luanda, in Angola, and has the use of one of the best ports in the Indian Ocean, Nkala in Mozambique. The main Soviet strategic aim is to detach Southern Africa from the Western orbit, and with it our supplies of gold, uranium, chrome, titanium and industrial diamonds. The NATO commanders know it. It is the politicians who remain blind, deaf and dumb.
The Secretary of State yesterday mentioned the report by SACLANT on operations outside the NATO area. This report was largely thanks to the North Atlantic Assembly Military Committee. The Soviet forces are in the South Atlantic; ours are not. We conduct no exercises and have no surveillance in that part of the world. This, indeed, is NATO's Achilles heel.
Why are we so blind? We are blind because, as Alexander Solzhenitsyn has said:
Great Britain, the kernel of the Western world has experienced a sapping of its strength and will to a greater degree perhaps than any other country. Contemporary society in Britain is living on self-deception and illusions both in the world of politics and of ideas …


They build themselves rickety structures to convince themselves that there is no danger.
After 10 years of Labour rule our Services are indeed, through no fault of their own, rickety structures. This period has witnessed the greatest decline in the status of this country in its history. Thanks to the warnings of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, the country is now at last becoming alarmed at this state of affairs.
The first duty of any Government is the security of the State. It is a duty that successive Labour Governments have failed to acknowledge. It will be our primary task to give national defence the priority which it deserves. It will certainly be a far higher priority than it enjoys today.

9.32 p.m.

Mr. Duffy: With the permission of the House, I should like to reply to the debate.
I am grateful to the hon. and gallant Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) and to others for their generous remarks to me. I also welcome their contributions to the debate, which have been of a high standard. There have been so many valuable contributions to the debate that I can say without fear of contradiction that they will all prove stimulating to me in my reply. I was glad to be called in their company this evening.
I wish to begin by making a statement on today's events off Iceland. The Icelandic Coastguard Vessel "Aegir" intercepted the British trawler "Primella" at 11·58 this morning 30 miles from the North-West Coast of Iceland and some 350 miles from the designated fishing area in which protection is provided for British trawlers. The "Aegir" ordered "Primella" to stop, fired a shot across her bows and put armed boarding parties into boats. "Primella" proceeded to steam south at best speed. I understand that she was accompanied by at least two other British trawlers. "Aegir" fired two further shots across "Primella's" bows and one across her stern. "Aegir" informed "Primella" that she was being fired upon for fishing inside the 200-mile limit and that firing would cease if the trawler stopped.
Meanwhile a Royal Air Force Nimrod had been immediately despatched to the scene, arriving at 13.27. "Aegir" was

then informed, using the Nimrod as a communications link, of the possible consequences if the coastguard vessel fired again upon the trawler.
Although the "Primella" is so tar away from the area in which protection is provided, the recent increase made in the level of protection has made it possible on this occasion for the frigate HMS "Lowestoft" to be despatched to the assistance of the trawler, and she is expected to reach her early tomorrow morning. Meanwhile further Nimrod reconnaissance sorties are being mounted until the frigate arrives.
This afternoon the French Ambassador in Reykjavik made representations to the Icelandic Ambassador on Her Majesty's Government's behalf. Preliminary reports from the French Ambassador suggest that the Icelanders now consider the incident closed, but we have not yet had confirmation from the fishing grounds that the "Aegir" has broken off her action.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull. West (Mr. Johnson) spoke at length on this matter.

Mr. James Johnson: May I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for that candid and informative answer. Will he tell the House who was responsible for giving orders to repel boarders?

Mr. Duffy: It is the trawler skipper's responsibility, taking due account of the safety of his crew and vessel.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: The House is grateful to the Minister for bringing us up-to-date about these events. In regard to the part played by the Nimrod aircraft, was it in direct radio touch with our trawler? Indeed, was she in direct radio touch with "Aegir"? Secondly, although I do not wish to embarrass the Minister, can he say whether the aircraft was armed?

Mr. Duffy: I cannot comment on the second question. As for the first question, yes, communication was established and the communication conveyed by the Nimrod to the Aegir was that we are entitled to take action in self-defence.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West and the hon. Member for Haltemprice spoke at length on the subject of Iceland. It is significant


that our frigates have been involved in 41 collisions protecting our trawlers. This is sufficient evidence of the robust and resolute instructions under which they are operating.
My hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) made some suggestions about how operations might be conducted in the distant fisheries off Iceland and I am grateful to him. He, and the hon. Member for Haltemprice, raised the subject of the present rules of engagement. I can assure them that the rules are the subject of deep consideration. They are under constant review. Our NATO Allies are grateful for the forbearance and self-control the Navy has shown in trying and sometimes dangerous circumstances. The hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) made a number of characteristically thoughtful and constructive observations. I am grateful to him for his invitation to visit HMS "Belfast" and I will certainly take him up on it. I am also grateful to him for his remarks about naval welfare.
I should like to say a word about the new arrangements which we are making for ratings who wish to leave the Navy before the end of their engagement. At present men on a notice engagement have the right to give 18 months' notice to leave any time after 18 months' service, either from age 18 or from the end of training, whichever is the later. Men on a committed engagement can apply for premature voluntary release, formerly known as discharge by purchase. The detailed arrangements for PVR in the Royal Navy are necessarily complicated for manning, training and drafting reasons, which are associated with its seagoing rôle.
We have, therefore, decided to simplify our release procedures and to make 18 months' notice the basis of release from both types of engagement. The PVR system will cease to be used in the Royal Navy. Instead, ratings on a committed engagement will generally be allowed to transfer to the notice engagement after three years' trained service and thus acquire the same right to give 18 months' notice. There will be no discharge fee under the new arrangements and ratings will have a much greater degree of certainty about the date of their release but

they will normally lose at least part of their committal pay.
We have consulted the Fleet about these changes and the vast majority of men were strongly in favour of them. Amendments to the naval terms of service regulations will shortly be laid before both Houses and, subject to their approval, the new arrangements will come into force on 1st October 1976.
I come to the point that has received the most attention during our debate, that of the maritime threat. For some of my hon. Friends who persist in maintaining that a threat does not exist, let us look once again at the balance of ready forces in the Eastern Atlantic and Channel areas. As Conservative Members are not slow to remind us, here the numerical balance is continuing to tilt towards the Warsaw Pact, which is at the same time making impressive improvements in the quality of its military capability. The Soviet Union has introduced new types of intercontinental ballistic missiles. It has a heavy nuclear submarine-building programme — 10 new boats a year. Eleven Delta class submarines are now operational, capable of landing missiles on targets in America and on the whole of Europe without leaving the safety of Soviet home waters. Each missile fired would have more destructive potential than all of the bombs dropped by the Allies in the last war. The "Kiev", which is of comparable size to HMS "Ark Royal", is expected to be operational this year. A second of the class has been launched and a third is under construction.
However, while there is, of course, no room for complacency, when we take into account other factors, as well as quality, such as training and morale, which Conservative Members may be inclined to ignore, the picture looks less black. Given the deterrent nature of NATO's strategy, I am firmly convinced that the level of United Kingdom maritime forces in the Eastern Atlantic and Channel areas, which remained virtually undiminished following the Defence Review, is consistent with the threat, and indeed continues to constitute a formidable reminder to the Warsaw Pact that we are serious in our intention to protect the democratic way of life against any encroachment.
I would remind the gloomy alarmists on the benches opposite, including the hon. Members for Shoreham (Mr. Luce), Louth (Mr. Brotherton) and Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark) that the assessment that I have just offered the House has recently been supported by an independent and highly respected body, the International Institute for Strategic Studies, whose Strategic Survey 1975 I recommend them to read for a balanced assessment of all the factors involved.
Perhaps I might break off to refer to the recent controversy in the United States about the comparative numbers of ships built by the Soviet Union and the United States, to which my hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) and Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bean) referred. I should not wish to become involved in an internal US controversy revolving around points of definition. Details of Warsaw Pact and NATO forces in the Eastern Atlantic are of course given in the Defence White Paper, and, as I have said, they show that the balance is continuing to move in favour of the Warsaw Pact.
But Senator Leahy's suggestion that the Soviet Union has not been outbuilding the United States in terms of naval vessels appears to depend on the exclusion not only of submarines but also of all vessels under 3,000 tons. That is hardly realistic, since all vessels equivalent in size to the Royal Navy's frigates would be excluded.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: The first set of figures to which I referred, the 84:151 contrast, are of ships above 1,000 tons, not above 3,000. The second figure, which came from the figures released last week, certainly referred to ships above 3,000, but not the first.

Mr. Duffy: In that case, we may finish all square. I concede the first point, but my hon. Friend must concede me the second. Furthermore, the Soviet submarine building rate over the last 15 years has been more than double that of the United States.
My hon. Friend raised many detailed points on the comparison of forces, with which I do not have time to deal now. I would certainly not wish to leave Russian SSBNs out of the balance. On Polaris and nuclear depth charges, my

right hon. Friend has dealt extensively with both—very recently in the case of the latter—and I cannot usefully add to that information. I shall certainly write to my hon. Friend about the graph for which he has asked.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) asked earlier today about submarine numbers. At the start of World War II, the Germans had 60 U-boats in action. Russia now has 330, compared with 200 in the Western Alliance. In comparing these numbers, hon. Members will realise that other forces are relevant to the ASW equation.
I come to the other point which has commanded most attention today, that of the offshore tapestry. I said earlier that Britain now had to concentrate on new priorities more directly related to her revised rôle in the world. One of these, of course, is the protection of our maritime interests immediately adjacent to our own shores, which include our important offshore oil and gas reserves and the resources on which our fishing industry depends. This was just one of the areas of vacuum left by our predecessors when the Labour Government entered office in 1974. As a result of our efforts, in a few months we were able to outline a strategy for the North Sea. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State announced our plans to the House on 11th February 1975.
The hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) and the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) referred to the Island class of vessel and raised several questions which have also been raised by the Sub-Committee on Defence Expenditure. We shall, of course, be replying in detail to the Sub-Committee's comments in the near future, but I do not accept the criticisms of these ships such as those advanced tonight. Their chief characteristics are good sea-keeping and endurance qualities which are essential if they are to stand up to the tough weather conditions in the North Sea and the Atlantic. Good communications are another vital feature, since it is through these that the more sophisticated warships of the Royal Navy can be summoned to assist should an incident occur requiring their facilities. They have the inestimable advantage nowadays of being relatively inexpensive. and they are the most suitable and cost-effective ships for the patrolling tasks involved.
We are of course keeping our arrangements for the future continuously under review, and we shall make any necessary adjustments in the light of experience.
I now take up the question of responsibility, or perhaps its dissipation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. Mallalieu) put it. It is true that ministerial responsibility for dealing with incidents affecting North Sea oil would depend on the nature of the incident. There is, however, very close co-ordination between the various Departments and agencies concerned and, as the House was informed as long ago as 6th November 1974, the Lord Privy Seal has special responsibility for overall co-ordination and protection measures and other maritime interests.
My hon. Friend also suggested that there should be a specially created task force for the purpose. But, as my predecessor explained in the defence debate, the offshore oil and gas installations already fall within the area of a single command—that of the Flag Officer Scotland and Northern Ireland and his Royal Air Force counterpart. The operational focus is, therefore, in the Maritime Headquarters at Pitreavie, and the whole range of duties carried out by the Armed Services is directed from there. I am satisfied that these arrangements are the most satisfactory from every point of view, and I am pleased to be supported in this conclusion by the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester.
What of hydrography, which I know concerns my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley)? I am sorry that I missed part of his speech, for reasons which I know he will understand. I am well aware of his anxiety and that of the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester, but, in today's economic climate, many services high in the list of national priorities are competing for resources. The problem of the future funding of the Hydrographic Survey Fleet is thus complex and is still under consideration. As soon as I can make any further comments, I shall do so.
The hon. and gallant Member for Winchester preaches to the converted when he advocates increased strength and when he proposes repayment work worldwide. I am not able to say any more on the first matter. I shall be willing to

consider any request for overseas surveys, however.
The hon. Member for Ayr dealt in some detail on the Select Committee's Report. We are, of course, giving careful consideration to the comments of the Committee and we shall be replying to them shortly. I was interested to hear the emphasis he laid on the shortcomings of shore-based aircraft, in view of the reluctance of the previous Government to develop the Maritime Harrier.
The hon. and gallant Member for Winchester and the hon. Member for Haltemprice asked to be brought up to date about the Sea Harrier. I can give them that information. It is planned to purchase a total of 25 of these aircraft, and deliveries are expected to begin in 1979 and to be completed by 1981.

Mr. Wall: Will the Navy fly them?

Mr. Duffy: I am sorry. I overlooked that question. Perhaps I might write to the hon. Gentleman about it.
The hon. Member for Shoreham gave an eloquent exposition of the maritime threat to be expected from someone with distinguished naval connections. But the world we live in is a rather different place from the one in which the Pax Britannica for which he yearns would be appropriate. He asked a straight question—are our naval forces adequate? I can give him a straight answer—"Yes", and I can assure him that safeguarding the route through the East Atlantic by which NATO will be reinforced and re-supplied in war time
is the primary task of the Royal Navy.
Hon. Members have referred to the 25 per cent. reduction in our force of Nimrod long-range maritime patrol aircraft and, of course, I recognise that maritime defence is indivisible. This reduction relates to the aircraft which will be withdrawn as a consequence of the reduction in our overseas commitments announced in the Defence Review. There will, in fact, be no reduction in the numbers of Nimrods we are deploying in the Eastern Atlantic and Channel areas.
The hon. Member for Shoreham also mentioned the importance of the flanks. We are fully conscious of the importance to NATO's defence strategy of both the southern and northern flanks. In the naval sphere, on the southern flank, we
shall be participating in naval and maritime exercises in the Mediterranean, and these joint operations and exercises are always a valuable aspect of peace time training of maritime forces from which the Royal Navy and our allies can he expected to benefit.
For the benefit of the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester, I might stress that our undertaking to train a second Royal Marine Commando group for winter warfare in Norway is evidence of our determination to maintain an effective contribution to the northern flank.
The hon. Member for Ayr, the hon. Member for Shoreham and the hon. Member for Louth raised the question of amphibiosity. It is true that we have reduced the numbers of amphibious ships in service, but those still available, together with "Hermes" in her secondary rôle and landing ships logistic, will be sufficient for many years to come to meet our requirements.
The hon. Member for Harrogate was less than generous about the Navy's investment in mine counter-measures. Let me say first of all that our primary objectives are to counter the mining threat to the major NATO and national submarine base on the Clyde and also the ports which are important for the cross-channel reinforcements of BAOR. Counter-measures consist of the detection and destruction of mine-laying vehicles, the reduction of ships' acoustic and magnetic signatures, and clearance of mines. On that last point it is important to note that the effectiveness of the new class of MCMVs, which will come into service from about 1979 onwards, will be much greater than that of the present generation, of which some 40 ships are in commission. Our choice of a second shipbuilder for this new class is evidence of our determination to allocate sizeable resources to this task.
The hon. Member for Harrogate also referred to the use of hovercraft in the mine counter-measures rôle. Hovercraft studies and trials have taken place over a number of years and a feasibility study into its use in the mine counter-measures rôle is well under way. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that it would be wrong to commit ourselves to hovercraft in this rôle before we were satisfied that it was capable of carrying it out

safely and effectively. Inevitably, the trials are taking time but in this context the hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that the Royal Navy has chartered an SRN4 hovercraft from 3rd May 1976 for a short period to conduct trials in the Portland area. We are evaluating various large commercial craft to determine their suitability in the mine counter-measures rôle.
I turn to the SACLANT Study. The hon. Member for Haltemprice and the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester suggested that we were neglecting the protection of our shipping around the world. I take the point about the need to protect our shipping in times of war outside the NATO area. I said as much in my opening speech and I indicated that studies are in hand, under the aegis of SACLANT, against this contingency. That does not imply, of course, any acceptance by NATO members of additional maritime commitments, but it is a normal part of the contingency planning which every prudent Government must undertake. As my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State said yesterday, the SACLANT study is completed and it has been sent to the defence Ministers of NATO for professional military opinion.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: I hope the Minister will leave enough time to talk about tritium.

Mr. Duffy: The right hon. Gentleman was not in the Chamber for some of the debate. If he had been, he would have known that too many questions have been asked for me to reply to them all. I will write to hon. Members about those that I cannot manage to deal with before 10 o'clock.
I can give the assurance sought by the hon. Member or Harrogate about the adequacy and state of training of the naval reserves. The size and rôle of the naval reserves have been tailored to the war and emergency plans for the Navy. They fulfil an important sea-going rôle in mine counter-measures warfare by providing 18 crews in war time.
They have proved their capability in this rôle, operating with ships of the RN and other countries. Every encouragement and help is given to the training and recruitment of the naval reserves. They are an integral part of the nation's maritime defences. Steps have been taken


recently to integrate the reserves even more closely with the Royal Navy, by placing them directly under the command and control of the Commander-in-Chief, Naval Home Command. Their training is effective and Royal Naval Reserve minesweepers regularly carry out routine training with the Royal Navy and take part in NATO and national exercises on a regular basis carrying out their assigned rôle.
The hon. Member for Ayr and the hon. Member for Shoreham raised the question of shipbuilding slippage. Hon. Members will realise that considerable effort is taken by the Ministry of Defence and shipbuilders to ensure the completion of building in good time. Naturally we are very much aware of the need to learn from past problems.
The hon. Member for Louth, in a rather vitriolic opening, mentioned Portsmouth dockyard. I can assure him that, in this respect at least, there will be no change in policy from that which pertained under my predecessor. It is not planned to close any of the home dockyards. They provide the support needed to maintain approved Royal Navy force levels, in particular those necessary to enable NATO commitments to be fulfilled, and there is a continuing requirement for their capacity.
I can give the assurance that the dockyard at Rosyth is not vulnerable to closure. There will continue to be a heavy load of refitting and repair work there.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Chatham mentioned the Chatham dockyard and the work done there. There is a continuing heavy load of naval refitting and repair work for Chatham dockyard. If pockets of spare capacity appear we shall continue to feed them with other work when circumstances permit. There is no question of diverting work from Chatham to Devonport. The additional facilities being provided at Devonport are needed to supplement those already existing at Chatham. I have every intention of visiting Chatham when the opportunity occurs.
Before concluding, I should like to say a word about the Royal Dockyards. Coming new to the subject with an economic background, I shall be concentrating hard on the efficient management of the dockyards and on their cost-

effectiveness and paying particular attention to the proposals for a trading fund.
I was very interested in the Defence and External Affairs Sub-Committee's comments on the dockyards, to which we shall be replying shortly, and shall certainly take its views into account in the consideration I intend to give to this subject in the coming months. A wide range of new management systems and changes to financial procedures, including a separate dockyard vote, are already being developed in order further to improve the performance of the dockyards. We are also constantly looking at ways of improving industrial relations in the yards.
I paid my first visit to a dockyard in my ministerial capacity last Wednesday when I chaired a meeting of the Royal Dockyards Policy Board in Devonport. I was favourably impressed by what I saw there, and particularly by the covered frigate refitting complex, the biggest covered dock facility in the country.
The departure of Mr. Richard O'Brien from the Dockyard Policy Board to take up his new post as Chairman of the Manpower Services Commission was a sad loss to the board. But we were fortunate in acquiring the services during the year of Mr. Maurice Coles. of Joseph Lucas Limited, and of Mr. Ken Griffin, of the Organising Committee of British Shipbuilders.
This is an appropriate opportunity to mention the valuable work carried out by our civilian staff not only in the dockyards and the support areas but in naval establishments all over the country, as well as those in headquarters, in establishments abroad and at sea with the Royal Fleet auxiliaries.
Although I have been in office for only a matter of four weeks, in that short time, as well as in my previous visits to the Navy, afloat and ashore, as PPS to the Secretary of State, I have been most favourably impressed by the high quality and dedication of the men and women, both Service and civilian, whom I have met. One must not lose sight of the fact that personnel are still, in these days of highly sophisticated equipment, the most important single factor in operating a Navy.
A great deal has been said one way or another in previous defence debates about the mythical "animal of defence". Opposition Members have accused us of committing the sort of crimes to which no member of the RSPCA could listen without blenching. But, far from being the heinous vivisectors Opposition Members have implied us to be, we would put a different interpretation on the Labour Government's handling of the defence animal. What we have done in the defence review and subsequently is

to convert the ponderous and outdated dinosaur of Tory defence policy, with its small brain, oversized body and lengthy tail, into the present-day streamlined Jaguar version. Such a transformation cannot, of course, be carried out without some pain, but we believe that the operation was entirely necessary and that the results will prove satisfactory.

Mr. Ted Graham (Lord Commissioner of the Treasury): I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Speaker: With the permision of the House, to save interrupting the next item of business within a minute and a half, I shall now put the 10 o'clock motion.

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Motion relating to Transport may be proceeded with, though opposed, until half-past Eleven o'clock and the Motion relating to Direct Elections to the European Assembly may be proceeded with, though opposed, until Eleven o'clock or for one hour after it has been entered upon, whichever is the later.—[Mr. Graham.]

NATIONAL FREIGHT CORPORATION

9.59 p.m.

Mr. Norman Fowler: I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the National Freight Corporation (Commencing Capital Debt) Order 1976 (S.I., 1976, No. 329).
This Order relates to the commencing debt of the National Freight Corporationwhich was formed by the 1968 Transport Act and began business in January 1969. Under the National Freight Corporation umbrella are more than 50 companies in the general and specialised road haulage industry, as well as a number of other companies which were taken over from British Rail. Unlike British Rail, the National Freight Corporation is not in a monopoly position, as it has only 10 per cent. of the "for hire" road haulage market.
The Order lays down the commencing capital debt of £98 million, and doubtless the Minister will tell us why it has taken so long since the inception of the company to agree this total, and to give the commencing debt and total capital debt of the corporation.
The Order raises important associated issues. It is a strong coincidence that we should be debating the affairs of the National Freight Corporation on the same day as British Rail announced a record loss. Regrettably, the National Freight Corporation is in exactly the same position. In a few days it will announce a record loss of just over £30 million. This means that in seven years

of existence the corporation has only twice returned a profit. This position must cause concern to this House.
We should be clear on one point. Although an argument can be made out for passenger subsidies on social grounds or other grounds, I see no social justification for subsidising freight, particularly freight when it goes by road. At a time when this country faces the worst economic crisis within memory, there can be no justification for subsidies in this area.
The first question we have for the Government is concerned with the way in which the current loss is being made. My information is that of this loss of £30 million, more than half was made by National Carriers, one of a number of nationalised companies in Britain competing with each other in the parcels and small freight area. The fact that National Carriers should be making this loss is a matter of great concern. When the Select Committee on the Nationalised Industries reported on the National Freight Corporation, it made a number of comments and suggestions about National Carriers. In August 1974 the Government replied to these suggestions, and said that they accepted the proposition that National Carriers could be made into a profitable enterprise
if left to be managed on a commercial basis".
The Government added that they accepted that National Carriers should be given a further opportunity to continue the trend towards profitability as a separate organisation.
The fact of the matter is that today that trend—which was one of reduced losses rather than true profitability—has not continued. Therefore, it is a matter of importance that the Government should make their position clear on this issue. Do they accept that the position has now changed? If so, what are their proposals for improving the financial position? What losses have resulted from the expansion of business into France? I understand that legal action on this issue is pending at the moment in France, and I recognise that while the matter is not exactly sub judice, it is sensitive. The position is that at the


beginning of last year the NFC purchased two French tanker operating companies for just over £3 million. Both concerns specialised in carrying liquids and gas, and, all told, more than 600 vehicles were involved. Concern over the position here has been expressed both by the Daily Express and the weekly magazine Motor Transport, and I pay tribute to their reporting. They raise an important case. I should like the Minister to give us guidance on two questions. First, can he say what scale of losses is involved in the entry of NFC into France in the last financial year? While the question is before the French courts we in the Opposition will reserve our comments, but we shall want a full and satisfactory explanation once the legal proceedings are concluded.
By statute the NFC is required at least to break even. The Department of the Environment expects more, however. It said in the evidence it gave to the Select Committee that the NFC was expected to make a commercial return on the capital invested. We would value the Government's analysis of the current position and of what is being done to correct that position.
There is an opportunity to put right the financial affairs of NFC. There is no reason why it should continue permanently to make a loss. There are two good reasons for hoping that the position can be changed. First, loss making is not a characteristic of anything like all the NFC companies. Two-thirds of them are in good shape. I refer to companies like Pickfords, British Road Services and British Road Services Parcels, which is now called Roadline and which has achieved a trading profit in every year since its formation in 1957.
In addition, the NFC is not run as some vast over-centralised nationalised industry. The corporation is broken down into a federated structure, and maximum independence is given to the separate companies.
My second reason is that the management in the NFC seems genuinely in no way to wish to avoid commercial realities. The opposite is the case. The approach of the corporation is stated by its chairman, Sir Dan Pettit, to be to achieve a commercially viable company, to invest

in success and to disinvest in failure. When we urge that the NFC should pay its way we are, we believe, pushing against an open door, because that represents the aspirations not only of the top management but of the staff. It is therefore against that background that we should turn our attention to the parts of NFC which are the major national loss-makers.
First is Freightliners, which is owned jointly by the NFC and British Rail. The NFC has the majority holding. Freightliners is currently running at a loss, but with the recession here and in Europe generally it should be noted that much of the transport industry is currently facing very difficult times. The concept of combining the best of road and rail, however, seems well worth pursuing.
This is of most value when dealing with long-haul freight, but there are limitations that must be accepted. It is no use believing that there is a panacea here, or that Government policy can miraculously move a massive quantity of goods from road to rail. The Secretary of State dismisses the prospect of a massive shift from road to rail as a pipe dream. However, there is obviously scope for sensible co-operation.
I am impressed with the management of Freightliners. It has the right commercial objectives, and the aims of the company should be pursued. I hope that it remains under the control of the NFC, with its commercial remit, rather than under British Rail—not because I have anything against British Rail, but it has enough problems of its own at present.
The crucial question concerns National Carriers, which was the subject of an inquiry by a Select Committee more than three years ago. There was a remarkable unanimity on the Committee.
The then Chairman of the British Railways Board, Sir Richard Marsh, said:
I do not think there can be any doubt that, with regard to the present method of operations, the three public sector organisations —the Post Office, the NFC and ourselves—are together producing a less than optimum result for the taxpayers.
The Road Haulage Association made the same point, and a witness from the Department of the Environment said that the Government wanted the public sector parcels services better rationalised,


avoiding any wasteful competition between nationalised industries. The Select Committee added that it believed that the public sector parcels operations should be rationalised. Virtually everyone who has examined this question is concerned about there being a number of nationalised companies doing a similar job.
The Select Committee recommended that a committee of inquiry should be set up to investigate the operation of the public sector parcels service. The Government's reply was less than convincing. They said that they were conscious of the danger that such an inquiry might be inconclusive and might delay a decision. They added that because of the complexity of the issue they were not then in a position to reply substantially to the Committee's recommendation.
The Government have now had a further 18 months to consider the matter, and it would be very strange if a Government who rejected an inquiry on the ground that it might delay decision-making were still not able to give a reply or an indication of their views now.
Many hon. Members on both sides of the House would like to see the position rationalised into a number of different types of businesses, so that one company might go for the specialised flow of textiles and another for a different specialist area. It is surely the supply of specialised services that is most important and where a number of new private enterprise companies have entered the field and, all credit to them, done extremely well.
I hope that the Minister will comment on the proposal of the Select Committee that National Carriers and Roadline should come together. This was originally rejected, on the ground that National Carriers should be given a further chance. Perhaps the company has now had that chance. We should value the Government's advice on this matter.
The National Freight corporation now faces a record loss. That is the sober and depressing fact. At this time above all else we cannot afford this scale of public expenditure. There are some hopeful signs, especially the commercial aims of the management but it must be the Government's endeavour to promote those aims. I hope that the Government will take this opportunity of letting us know their plans and proposals.

10.16 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: I agree with the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) that there is a need to bring together the public undertakings—I include the Post Office—that deal with parcels. The question that concerns me about the National Freight Corporation is whether it is carrying out the duty that it was given in the Transport Act 1968. Under that Act the corporation was created to operate the publicly-owned freight services. It required the corporation
to … promote the provision of, properly integrated services for the carriage of goods within Great Britain by road and rail; and to secure that in the provision of those services, goods are carried by rail whenever such carriage is efficient and economic.
That should remain the Government's policy as it remains the Labour Party's policy. However, recent decisions by the NCL and Freightliners Limited, subsidiaries of the publicly-owned National Freight Corporation, continue to flout Government policy and the wishes of Parliament as laid down in the 1968 Act. Nevertheless, the NCL and Freightliners appear to have the blessing of the Government in the consultation document on transport policy. For example, in paragraph 8·3 in page 62 the document refers to the road-versus-rail argument as a barren argument. That is true, though we have never considered it in that light in the Labour movement.
We have always urged integration. Again and again we have demanded integration, but it has not been brought about, despite the legislation that has been enacted. The document states that these developments are
unlikely to alter radically the distribution between road and rail … rail will normally continue to be more expensive for wagonload traffic except over long distances.
Long distances are usually regarded as those above 75 miles. I am by no means satisfied that, even above 75 miles, any advance has been made. In fact, there has been a deterioration.
Paragraph 8.8 in page 63 states:
Since the original transfer of National Carriers Limited (NCL) from British Rail to the National Freight Corporation there has, in fact, been some shift away from rail.
There has been no massive shift—perhaps we cannot expect one—from road to rail, but a shift has taken place in the


other direction. There has been a shift away from rail
partly because of increased British Rail freight charges"—
because of the removal of the freight subsidy—
but more particularly because exclusive reliance on rail would not provide the flexibility of service demanded, especially by the highly competitive small freight market.
That statement to some extent condones the movement of traffic from rail to road. As an example of the difficulties that are mentioned, I should like to read part of a letter from the National Freight Corporation. I complained that all the traffic between Glasgow and Preston was carried by road, not by that magnificent electrified line that has been built at great cost. All the traffic goes by road. I asked why, and was told:
There are a number of practical reasons why the Glasgow traffic passes by road throughout, quite apart from the economic issue.
These "practical", so-called, difficulties are numerous, but it does not mean that they are insuperable hindrances. The paragraph concludes with these words:
I am sorry to have to say also that when the traffic passed by rail there were numerous occasions on which the rail transits were seriously delayed".
Seriously delayed on this super electrified line!
I have learned from another source that the reason for using road transport was the need to utilise unemployed road vehicles. The same argument applies to unemployed rail capacity. If we get into that situation, I can see more traffic being transferred from rail to road.
A good example, also in the letter, is an answer to my question about the Camden NCL depot and the effective closing of Camden sidings. The letter states that it is
one result of a very necessary rationalization".
That is a euphemism. It is used frequently when plant is closed.
… Camden NCL depot no longer participates in the company's network service, but concentrates on specialised warehousing and distribution activities, with an obvious effect on the amount of trunk traffic moving in and out by rail or road.

The situation seems to be getting worse. Foreseeing non-economic factors like this in the transfer of rail traffic to road, the 1968 Act provided for quantity licences. That provision has never been implemented, although it was the biggest carrot offered to the rail unions.
Another safeguard was the Freight Integration Council, which the transport policy consultation document admits has not been a success—and how!
The performance of Freightliners has been most disappointing. Beeching placed great reliance on its expansion. It was one of the few good ideas that he had. The extremely damaging cuts that he imposed on British Rail he tried to justify on an estimate of rapid freightliner growth.
Let us look at the position. The Beeching Report of 1963 stated that Freightliners had a potential market of 30 million tons a year rising to 40 million tons in 10 years. What is the position today? It is not 30 million tons or 40 million tons. The 1975 figure was only 3 million tons—less than 10 per cent. of the forecast. Yet a great potential remains. For example, 300 million tons are moved 100 kilometres or more by lorry, and British Rail could capture enough of that tonnage to become economically viable with road haulage, which will continue to grow, hardly feeling the loss. British Rail has failed partly through lack of drive and partly through lack of investment.
What is the policy regarding the "second generation" freightliner, using smaller containers, which have been developed by British Rail research staff, to capture new traffic? About £6·5 million would be needed as capital to start a pilot project.
Management and trade unions have been blamed for the rail problem—in the main, wrongly. The Conservatives blame nationalisation, their favourite Aunt Sally. However, the problem is the same throughout the world. When the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield speaks about losses and how they can be met, he overlooks the fact that in every part of the world competitors. the big industrial nations, have similar problems in trying to balance their railway accounts.
Does the hon. Gentleman deny it?

Mr. Norman Fowler: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would concede that there was a great difference between freight operations and passenger operations.

Mr. Atkins: I am speaking about the total of the railway accounts, both passenger and freight. There is increasing difficulty, even in the United States, with long-haul traffic, which is normally profitable and especially so when it is mineral traffic. The problem exists throughout the world.
The problem is due, as many recognise, to the different costing as between rail and commercial road haulage. I emphasise the word "commercial". The American Association of State Highway Officials—at a cost, at the time, of about $28 million—carried out tests on various roads in the late 1950s. The results showed, as we can see from page 121 of Volume 2 of the Consultation Document, that on a road the
Damaging power was related to the axle load in proportion to the 4th-power of the axle load with a higher power for the thinnest pavements.
On this ratio, 1,000 12-ton lorries damage the road as much as 160 million motor cars. If taxation were on that ratio, I am sure that rail freight would come into its own. If road vehicles were taxed in this proportion, the majority of heavy, long-distance lorries would be priced off the roads. So rail freight suffers from the cross subsidy to commercial road users received from the taxation of ordinary motor cars.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the total paid in taxation on road vehicles is more than twice the total cost of repair and maintenance of roads and construction of new roads? How can he possibly maintain that argument?

Mr. Atkins: I am merely referring to proportions, but I challenge the hon. Gentleman's figure. I know that the Road Haulage Association puts these figures forward, but it conveniently forgets that there are many other costs. For instance, it usually gives the gross figure of tax, from which should be deducted tax remissions. We must remember that half of the cars registered this year were company cars, all receiving tax remission. I am sure the hon. Gentleman understands

business undertakings. But it would be fair to charge road users with the original capital cost of the roads that were built before the motor age. Moreover, there is no reason why roads should not be rated as any other business. The railways were rated until fairly recently.

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman is talking arrant nonsense. Does he suggest charging the railways with the capital cost of the construction of the railways? He knows perfectly well that the railways receive as big a subsidy as the road industry pays heavy taxation to subsidise them, but still they cannot compete. How can he possibly put that construction upon the figures? He is talking absolute bilge.

Mr. Atkins: It is a great pity that the hon. Gentleman is not better informed in these matters. I was not suggesting that roads should be rated at all; I was merely using the kind of language that I hear from Opposition Members, especially the hon. Gentleman, speaking about true costs.
There is no reason, for instance, why roads should not be rated like any other business. If they were, the cost would be enormous. They are not charged for the cost of accidents which, on the basis of the estimation of the chief constable in one of the Home Counties, cost £1,000 million a year. The cost of congestion is £1,000 million and, in addition, the cost of lighting and policing is very considerable. Social costs, too, are very great indeed. All these are not taken account of in the figures that the hon. Gentleman offers.

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman is talking rubbish.

Mr. Atkins: The kind of remarks the hon. Gentleman is making do not contribute to our debate at all.
If I may go on, I repeat that rail freight suffers from the cross subsidy to commercial road users received from the taxation of ordinary motor cars, many of which are run on tax remissions.
In respect of damage to the road, and the cost to the taxpayer and the road user, the Consultation Document states that the conclusions reached by the American Association of State Highway Officials are "pertinent to the roads in the United Kingdom". Indeed, the results of the British Transport and Road.
Research Laboratory, confined to one type of road because its researches have been limited, approximate to a sixth power law, which is much more damaging than that estimated by the American highway engineers. In South Africa it is a 4½ power relationship.
In other words, both these studies indicate greater damage than the tests carried out in the United States. These facts are accepted throughout the world, and this results in the difficulty of rail competing with road. These circumstances are recognised throughout the world in the form of generous grants paid by various Governments to their railway undertakings. For instance, the figure in Germany is between £1,000 million and £1,200 million a year. The grant to the French railways is a great deal more than in Britain, and this is one of the factors that account for the greater proportion of goods carried by rail by all of Britain's major competitors.
There is, therefore, justice in the National Freight Corporation receiving all the capital it needs—and, indeed, that applies to the railways themselves—for the purpose of investment.
It is significant that the Japanese railways, with the highest productivity in freight carried, have received most money from their Government—£2,500 million a year. This infrastructure does a great service to Japanese industry. Let us remember that Japan is similar in size to Britain and it is much more difficult to build railways there. However, Japan has modernised its railways to bring them to perfection. Japan is often quoted as "the country with the mostest" in industry. It is one example we could follow, not to mention Germany, France, the USSR, America and, indeed, most of the leading industrial countries of the world.

10.34 p.m.

Mr. Peter Fry: I would like to make a few remarks in answer to what is the first speech by the hon. Member for Preston, North (Mr. Atkins) in his capacity of Chairman of the Back Bench Labour Transport Committee. We welcome him to our debate in that capacity. He trotted out the age-old arguments that the Consultation Document itself has done so much to dispel by clearly stating that the possibility of a major transfer of freight from road

to rail was a pipe dream. I think that many of us on the Opposition Benches would agree with that.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: When it comes to a major transfer, I do not think that it is possible. A lot would go to rail, but in relative terms it would be a small amount.

Mr. Fry: I want to bring the argument back to the National Freight Corporation. The hon. Gentleman will be only too well aware that much of the activity of its subsidiaries has to do with parcels traffic. It takes about 85 per cent. Of it. But many firms in the private sector are charging rates considerably above those currently being charged by the corporation and its subsidiaries, and they are still making a healthy profit. The hon. Gentleman should look into the reasons why they can charge a lot more yet still make a profit. He will then see some of the things that are wrong with the corporation.
The Transport Act 1968 set up this corporation. It was hoped to bring about the kind of integrated transport system so dearly beloved of some of the more doctrinaire Members on the Government Benches. But I want to recall what the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bradley) said. He told the House that the Act was doomed to failure. One could imagine those words to have been spoken by the Tory spokesman on transport, but not a bit of it; they were spoken by the hon. Gentleman in the transport debate on 23rd January.
The hon. Gentleman is President of the Transport Salaried Staffs Association and I understand that he cannot be here because, quite properly, he is attending the annual conference of his union. But I am sure that if he were here he would repeat his words. His speech in that debate on 23rd January deserves special consideration.
The hon. Gentleman quoted the obligation under the Act for the corporation to use the rail services wherever they were economic and efficient. He went on to say that this was not being achieved and that, in particular, National Carriers Limited was not co-operating closely with British Railways. He said that there was now intense competition within the nationalised sector—"wasteful", he called it—but he added that NCL was failing to divert traffic to Freightliners Limited,


yet another National Freight Corporation subsidiary. He described the small parcels market as "a bear pit", with competition between NCL, Freightliners Limited, British Railways and the Post Office.
The hon. Member for Leicester, East has spent many more years than I have in the transport industry, and I believe that his views, whether one agrees with them or not, deserve respect. The charge he made on that day, and what my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) has said tonight, show clearly the need for this debate. We have to ask ourselves what we know about the present situation.
The first thing we know is what was contained in the Minister for Transport's Written Answer on 21st January, when he said that the National Freight Corporation's losses would amount to about £30 million in 1975 and that he was therefore making a grant of £8 million to help it out of its difficulties. Not only the House but the taxpayer will want to ask the Government one or two question about that kind of policy.
One of those questions is whether the reorganisation set up under the 1968 Act is failing to meet its objectives, whether changes are necessary, and if so, what. After all, the corporation has a statutory duty to break even, and this it failed to do by a very considerable margin in 1975.
The hon. Member for Preston, North said that the corporation had failed to achieve its other obligation in respect of the use of British Rail. He quoted at length from the Government's consultative document, pointing to the movement of traffic from rail to road and emphasising the difficulties in the highly competitive small freight market.
I do not wish to be unfair to senior management in the corporation because I am only too aware of the difficulties under which they operate. It is probably true to say that never since the moment of its creation has the corporation had sufficient investment of capital to pursue the policies that it would like to pursue. In seeking to generate sufficient funds for investment, it has had to cope with almost impossible financial problems.
The corporation began with the millstone of a heavy pension burden obli-

gation incurred for previous British Rail employees. Furthermore, when it made a loss, it had to borrow money from the Government and then pay interest on that money. That, in turn, has compounded its difficulties. That certainly caused the corporation difficulties in its early years. That perhaps marred a not unsatisfactory situation from a trading point of view, up to about four years ago. However, there is little doubt that in the last year or so the situation has worsened considerably. The recent recession in this country has been exceedingly damaging. The problem has worsened for this group of companies, because of its size and perhaps because its main subsidiary, NCL, has not been sufficiently readjusted to the size of the market and to the problems we have experienced in these months of economic recession.
I hope that the Minister will give the House his views about the future situation. I trust he will enlighten us about the review of the corporation's activities that is supposed to be taking place. For example, what do the Government think of the various estimates of the size of the market for which corporation subsidiaries are competing? It seems reasonably clear that the reduction in the market, as evidenced by statistics—for example, a total of 530 million parcels carried in 1965 was reduced to a figure of 420 million in 1972—will continue. If the forecast of 386 million parcels in 1981 is found to be true, it would be folly to go on with a structure involving the splitting up of the market into competing units, because the nature of the market is changing. The demands of the customer are much more sophisticated, and the best value may be derived by catering for individual needs.
Does the Minister feel that the various limbs of the corporation or the various constituent companies are being properly co-ordinated? If one visits high streets throughout the country, one sees a succession of vehicles, many of which call at the same premises, all belonging to one or other of the subsidiaries of the NFC. In the light of a declining market and the difficulties involved, this aspect should be looked into. Should not the Minister ask the management of the corporation for the details of its plans for the next few years?
The Select Committee in its Report made the point about the need for a corporate plan. If the Government cannot get any details, should not the Minister say that the review that is taking place ought to produce them? I am as pleased as other hon. Members that the corporation has had successes, such as selling expertise in Iran, but, like my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield, I am much less pleased about the news of the millions of pounds that have been lost in the French venture.
Although to some extent diversification would be of direct assistance to the profitability of the organisation, one problem is that it is so large that there is always the danger of some of the minor concerns being involved in the losses and problems of the larger companies, particularly National Carriers Ltd. I would have hoped that the Government would realise the problem faced by the National Freight Corporation management and would tell it to produce a plan and a series of targets.
The Government should say that rather than having constantly to bail out the Corporation with £8 million, this year, or whatever it is to be next year, they will provide sufficient investment to enable the corporation to re-organise itself on commercial lines, which the management so clearly wants. When the targets are achieved the Government could continue to help until the Corporation was fully viable and able to produce its own investment capital. In that way the Government would be making a constructive approach to the problem of the NFC.
I get the impression that the management of the corporation, like the House, has been waiting for a long time for the Government to make up their mind about what they want to do. The time has come for the Government to tell the corporation that they appreciate that the NFC wants to operate on a commercial basis and that the Government wish to give it every encouragement, so that it may learn from the lessons provided daily in the reports of the many private concerns in the haulage business which point to the fact that it is possible to operate at a profit.

10.48 p.m.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I would like to put before the Minister the case that has been prepared by a committee in my constituency under the chairmanship of Mr. J. L. Rule, who for 25 years was manager in Scotland of BRS Parcels Ltd. It seems that in the case which he has pepared he has gone into the issue in considerable depth, and it could well be of interest to Scotland and the United Kingdom as a whole.
The committee says that in Scotland the parcels and small freight group of the National Freight Corporation operates four companies, namely National Carriers Limited, Roadlink UK Limited, formerly BRS Parcels Limited, Scottish Parcel Carriers and Tartan Arrow Services, each acting in competition, and each of them making losses, except Roadlink UK Limited. In addition, the committee has noticed that these companies also compete with British Rail and the Post Office in the parcels market, and that these latter two publicly-owned organisations make substantial losses in this area.
I refer to the remark made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) in his excellent speech, that the National Freight Corporation is expected to make a commercial return on money invested. Mr. Rule's committee argues that there is a case for greater co-ordination in the parcels area and he points out that this has been referred to on more than one occasion by the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries.
Mr. Rule says that each of the companies concerned operates generally throughout the United Kingdom, duplicating each others' services, none of them providing an altogether satisfactory collection and delivery service, and in aggregate incurring substantial losses. The committee claims that considerable savings could be achieved by merging, as a first step, the parcels companies within the control of the National Freight Corporation. It argues that this would bring about economies in staff, in vehicles and probably in premises.
As it is, on 21st July this year, 170 working men will lose their jobs in Glasgow and a further 20 in Dundee as


a result of the closure of North British Express Carriers Ltd.—a subsidiary of the National Freight Corporation—which was making substantial losses. The decision was made because of the losses. If the corporation wishes to make great savings, surely there is a case for merging the parcels companies.
Operating after the merger would, the committee considers, have great advantages for trade and industry in the United Kingdom generally and in Scotland. In place of each company operating generally throughout the United Kingdom, directional services could be operated, each company being responsible for a specific area within the United Kingdom. It thinks that information on traffic movements and volume of traffic would be required to assess which company would operate in which part of the United Kingdom allocated to it, but it suggests a rough guide.
Roadlink UK Ltd. could be responsible for all parcels traffic to and from Scotland and the NorthEast, North-West and East of England. National Carriers Ltd. could be responsible for all traffic to and from Scotland and the Midlands, West and South of England. Wales for this purpose would be included in the West.
Third, the committee suggests that Tartan Arrow would be responsible for all traffic to and from Scotland and to the London area, but as its Scottish depots are being closed in July this year, the traffic could be undertaken by either Roadlink or National Carriers, depending on a proper assessment of the traffic position. Fourth, it is reported that the Scottish depots of Scottish Parcels Carriers are also being closed in July and a review of those services should be necessary to allocate those services either to Roadlink Ltd. or to National Carriers Ltd.
I put this case to the Minister tonight because there have been closures in Scotland these two companies have been operating in duplication, and it is difficult to get information about the workings of the National Freight Corporation. I shall be very grateful for any information which the Minister can give which will be of great assistance to my constituents.

10.53 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: I, too, should like to

ask some questions. I do not understand why the commencing capital debt of the National Freight Corporation—£98 million—has only just been set. It is six or seven years since this odious body came into existence. Why was its commencing capital debt not started at the beginning? How much interest has accrued on the commencing capital debt which has not been levied against it, so to speak, to date? Has it paid that interest, or will it be excused it?
We are told that the National Freight Corporation lost £30 million last year. Why? It is extraordinary that the Minister for Transport—who rolled in about five minutes ago— can treat so cavalierly a loss of £30 million and the granting of a capital debt of £98 million, which may or may not be realistic—I know not, since these figures are plucked out of the air.
What has it cost us, this montrous failure of Socialism, this disgraceful money-wasting extravagance of the nationaliser? What has it cost us? We have a right to know.
If the Minister of Transport were to go round his constituents on a wet November night and ask each person for £1, which is about what it is for each adult in respect of the loss for last year, he would not be quite so smug. He would not sit on the Treasury Bench and smile. He would get things said to him that would be much more robust than what I am saying to him now. Even £1, which is not much under this Government—it has been depreciated in its value—would be enough to produce stinging comments from his constituents about how it came about that £30 million had been lost.
I cite the example of the cold storage activities of the National Freight Corporation—Temco. That has nothing to do with transport or with the glorious, integrated transport plans of the hon. Member for Preston, North (Mr. Atkins), making losses into profits and profits into losses, subsidies into dividends and dividends into subsidies. He stands logic on its head. After his chronicle of gloom about the disastrous failures of nationalised transport, he tries to pretend that black is white and white is black.
The point is that the corporation has not only been in transport: it has been


in cold storage. It owns 10 per cent. of the country's cold storage industry, and it has lost a bomb. Why do the accounts not show how much Temco has lost? Why is it not published? We talk about accountability. We do not know how much Temco has lost.
We know that it has been investing in France, across the exchanges, in cold stores. My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) talked in terms of £3 million, but it has lost a lot more than that, because the cost of closing the French enterprises has been greatly in excess of the original capital investment. May we be told what the French adventure has cost?
This is the proper occasion to ask these questions about accountability to Parliament. I want to ask one more question, and I ask it in all seriousness. Who is to be sacked? Who is responsible? This is a terrible story of failure and the squandering of public money. Who is to lose his job? Who is to be put in his place to manage it better for the future? No private sector company can lose £30 million in a perfectly prosperous sector of industry—freight, cold storage and transport. A haulage company in private ownership would make decent profits doing exactly the same thing. Why has the corporation lost this money?
What defences have the unfortunate taxpayers? What is to happen? What is to stop the corporation losing £30 million or £60 million next year? If that happens, the Under-Secretary will have to come to the House again, late at night on a quiet evening with no vote, to ask for the money, hoping to get it through by stealth.
This is no way to justify public enterprise. This is the way to heighten the suspicions of the citizens that nationalisation is an expensive failure. One would expect the hon. Gentleman to come to the Dispatch Box to tell of the great successes, of his great plans for the future, how this brilliant example of public enterprise is serving the nation, and how the loss will be recouped in future years of profit. Not at all: he hopes just to sneak through this Order.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough made some excellent

points of detail, but is it to be left to me, who does not know much about transport—it is not my speciality—to ask where the money has gone, who is responsible, and whose head will be on the block? The Government cannot do these things and expect not to be criticised. I want to know who is to be sacked for the French adventure in buying Robert Hillaire, which has cost the taxpayer dearly across the exchanges. I want to know who is to be sacked for the Temco venture, which has done great damage to the British cold storage industry. Finally, I want to know who is to pay the price for the £30 million which the corporation has lost by losing his own job.
There is no other discipline in the public sector. There is no other way. We have to pay. I agree that this Order must go through. I do not know to what extent it contains the £30 million loss rolled up in the commencing capital debt or what is the financial situation underlying the Order. It would make no difference to deny the Order, because all we are being asked to do is to take note of the commencing capital debt. It would still be there if we refused to take note of it.
Ministers talk of the greater accountability of nationalised industries, but this shabby little episode, this debate, tucked in late at night after a strenuous day and no vote at 10 o'clock, is an example of the way in which the shining results of nationalised industries are emblazoned by the Government for all to see and hear.
What will be done to stop the rot. No specious arguments about an integrated transport policy, or whether there are duplications in the parcels service or in the provision of freight services, will obviate the need for someone to be accountable for the losses of this corporation

11.2 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Kenneth Marks): This is the first major debate exclusively on the National Freight Corporation since its creation under the Transport Act 1968. The corporation is the largest inter-model freight concern in Europe, employing some 45,000 staff and over 20,000 vehicles


and having a current annual turnover of over £300 million.
It is therefore not surprising that some of the matters raised tonight have gone beyond the specific terms of the motion. I intend to confine my speech to points relating to the financial position of the corporation, but I have nevertheless listened with interest to the more general points raised. They will, of course, be taken into account in our consideration of the reaction to the Consultation Document

Mr. Norman Fowler: The hon. Gentleman said that this is the first debate on the National Freight Corporation since its formation. The debate has not been tucked away because of Government initiative in bringing it on the Floor of the House; we are discussing the matter because we forced a debate. I hope that the Minister will answer all the questions asked by my hon. Friends

Mr. Marks: I shall endeavour to answer some of the questions, but the Government, like the Opposition, I hope, are considering their policy in the light of the Consultation Document. We intend to listen to the views of hon. Members and other interested persons and organisations.
It may be of some help to hon. Members if I go back a little in time and provide an outline of the legislation setting up the corporation. The creation of a National Freight Corporation is the first provision of the Transport Act 1968, while Section 3 of the Act provides for the corporation to assume a commencing capital debt in accordance with Schedule 2 to the Act. This confers on the Secretary of State the powers to make the Order that we are now debating.
Section 4 of the Act provides for various securities, rights and liabilities to be transferred to the Corporation from the then Transport Holding Company and from British Railways. For the purposes of the Order the Secretary of State has adopted the net book value of these assets as determined by independent consultants.
There has admittedly been some delay in arriving at the figure which appears in the Order. This is because it proved to be a task of some magnitude to establish the assets transferred and a formula for their valuation. In particular, the con-

sultants only recently completed a review of the physical assets involved in creating the Freightliners subsidiary, which makes extensive use of existing rail facilities. Once this review was complete, however, it was a matter of some importance to make the order immediately, so that the Secretary of State might then require the corporation to begin refinancing tranches of debt. The repayments are to be made in accordance with a schedule designed by the consultants to produce payments of capital and interest corresponding to those on the debt underlying the assets concerned. The House will appreciate—as the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) does—that the corporation would otherwise stand to gain by the difference between the historic average of 5·35 per cent. interest on this debt, which it has been paying on a provisional basis meantime, and current rates well into double figures.
I of course appreciate that for the time being increased interest charges merely increase the need for Exchequer support. There is, however, a well-known principle that Exchequer assistance should in such cases be given overtly and not be disguised behind artificially low rates of interest. I hope therefore that the House will agree that the Order is a strictly proper one for my right hon. Friend to have laid at this time.
I turn now to the overall financial position of the corporation. In considering this we should bear in mind the very considerable success achieved by the corporation in the early years of its operation. The corporation as a whole recorded a trading profit of £4 million in 1969 which had increased to £8 million by 1973.
When it became part of the National Freight Corporation, National Carriers, formerly the rail sundries portion of British Rail, was losing annually about £20 million on a turnover of £45 million. Within five years this trading deficit was reduced to £4 million, and only £43 million of the £60 million five-year grant provided for NCL under the Transport Act needed to be taken up. This financial improvement meant a considerable rationalisation of services and facilities. but this was achieved with a minimum of industrial disruption. This is a reflection of the good relations between unions and management which have always existed within the corporation. Equally,


the corporation has a commendable record in conforming quickly to regulations governing the condition and use of vehicles.
At this point I should also mention the achievement of Freightliners. The development of container train transport is a field in which Britain has led the rest of the world. The number of containers carried by Freightliners each year has increased from 27,000 in 1966 to about 650,000 at present. Since Freightliners has been under the control of the NFC the number of containers carried has doubled. Over this period a particularly important development has been the growth of maritime traffic carried by Freightliners. This has meant that sea containers could be carried direct from the docks, thereby relieving the hard-pressed roads near the docks.
I mention these points because in discussing the corporation's financial difficulties it is easy to overlook its successes

Mr. Fry: The Minister has made great play of the improvement of Freightliners. Will he comment on the current financial situation of that service? Is it making a profit or a loss now?

Mr. Marks: I cannot give figures now for the various parts of the corporation, particularly as we are almost due to receive the corporation's annual report, but I shall try to provide figures if they are available.
Bearing in mind these achievements, it was with considerable regret that my hon. Friend had to inform the House on 21st January that the corporation's total loss for 1975 was estimated to be about £30 million. As he explained, this loss was due to the effect of the recession and the particular problems that this had brought about in the corporation's rail-linked companies, NCL and Freightliners. It was clear that if there was to be a full and lasting solution to the corporation's financial problems, a careful and detailed study of the situation was necessary. My hon. Friend therefore announced that a review was being undertaken into the ways in which the corporation's deficit could be eliminated. As the Consultation Document on transport policy makes clear, the Government does not believe that there is a case for general long-term subsidy for freight, whether by

road or rail. My hon. Friend was, however, prepared to make a temporary grant to meet the corporation's cash flow shortfall while the review was taking place.
The £8 million grant announced on 21st January has now been used up, and I can inform the House that the Corporation will receive an additional temporary grant of £11 million so that it can continue to meet its financial obligations over the coming months

Mr. Ridley: Shame! Who is paying?

Mr. Marks: Preliminary results of the review, which is being carried out by the financial consultants, Coopers and Lybrand Associates, in conjunction with the NFC, have shown that the Corporation's financial problems are very deep-seated. The extension of the temporary grant arrangements will provide further time for full consideration of a difficult and complex problem. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that in view of the size and importance of this organisation, it is right to look for long-term and lasting solutions.
At the same time, the corporation is fully aware of the need to minimise its call on scarce resources, and is doing all it can to reduce its cash flow deficit. The corporation will of course continue its policy of full consultation with the unions concerned.
A supplementary estimate to cover this additional grant will be presented to the House for approval as soon as possible. Sums made available meanwhile will be issued from the Contingencies Fund.

Mr. Ridley: Can the Minister tell us how much has been lost on cold storage operations and, more particularly, how much has been lost on the French cold storage operation?

Mr. Marks: There is a legal dispute on the French matter at the moment. As far as cold storage generally is concerned, I thought the hon. Member said that in view of what was happening he would not press for information. I am not able to give him details of the loss on the French undertaking.
In this area the National Freight Corporation did behave commercially.

Mr. Ridley: Did it hell!

Mr. Marks: It cannot be inferred from the overall operation that the cold storage activities are not profitable.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) for his praise for the National Freight Corporation's management and staff, despite their difficulties and despite their regretted loss this year. As he admitted, much of the transport industry throughout Europe is in difficulties at the moment. These are particularly difficult times. The period is not representative. The hon. Member asked whether we propose that freight in the National Freight Corporation should be on commercial lines. I remind him that in the transport policy statement we said in paragraph 5(11):
Given a fair system of taxation on the heavy lorry (and the special assistance for private rail sidings) it is right that British Railway's freight losses should be extinguished as soon as possible. Both road and rail freight should be run on normally commercial lines, carrying the traffic for which they are best suited.
The hon. Member suggested that there should be some specialisation within the NCL. NCL has recognised the need for that. In the carriage of clothing, for instance, it has gone in for a different type of vehicle and is linked with important retail organisations for carrying clothing.
A number of hon. Members have raised the question of the parcels side. We recognise that a problem exists here. We have recognised it in the course of the transport policy review. We shall come forward with a policy in this respect after consultations have been held on the review.

Mr. Norman Fowler: The Minister is telling us only that he will consider everything that has been said and will in due course come forward with a policy. But a record loss of £30 million is being made and there is to be a further Government loan. All these points were put to the Government 18 months ago. Meanwhile, the losses go on and further public expenditure is made.

Mr. Marks: It is only right that we should not announce policies until consultations have been held with all concerned. We have put out a consultative document on freight and road, rail and bus transport. I cannot agree that we should announce policies before the con-

sultations on that document have been held.

Mr. Ian Gow: The Minister said three times in the last five minutes that the NFC must be run on commercial lines. How does he reconcile that with the further announcement of additional subsidy of £11 million during the current year? Are not those two concepts totally irreconcilable

Mr. Marks: Not at all. I said that during the review assistance would be given to the NFC in its difficulties surrounding its loss last year. That is what we are doing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North (Mr. Atkins) referred to the Glasgow—Preston service. I shall look into that point. The circumstances are strange when the corporation is doing its best to carry out the two aims given to it by the Government. Those are to carry by rail where that is efficient and economic to do so, yet to break even.
The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) asked whether changes were necessary in the NFC. They may well be needed. That point is being examined by consultants and in the broader aspects of the transport policy review. I note the hon. Member's comment about estimates of the size of the market. I cannot reply to that point. The hon. Member asked whether the various limbs of the NFC were being co-ordinated. The NFC is not alone in its difficulties. These are shared by other concerns in both public and private enterprise. There must be a thorough examination both inside and outside the NFC to decide what can be done.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) was kind enough to give me some warning of what he intended to say. Many of the matters he raised and which his constituent raised directly with the NFC and the Department are being considered. The corporation is aware of the proposals. One of the difficulties is that the hon. Member has asked for a great deal of information that is felt to he commercially confidential. I have noted what he said and his constituent's suggestions can be considered in die broader aspect.
The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury accused us of doing things


by stealth. Very often, decisions are announced in the House but the hon. Member is not aware of them. On 17th March he asked whether the Secretary of State was aware that some people were estimating that the loss would be in the region of £30 million. My right hon. Friend had to tell him that the figure had been announced two months earlier.
The hon. Member wanted to know who was to be sacked —a subject of which he has some personal experience.
I trust the House will agree that it was correct, for reasons of financial propriety, for the corporation's commencing capital debt to be determined in the way it was and at this moment.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of the National Freight Corporation (Commencing Capital Debt) Order 1976 (S.I., 1976. No. 329).

Mr. Ridley: Wind it up. It is a failure.

Mr. Marks: We have considered the overall financial position of the corporation, and it will be clear from what I have said that the Government are aware of the difficulty and complexity of the corporation's current financial situation.
It is right that temporary assistance should be given while the situation is being reviewed. The long-term objective must be a return to viability, and we are determined to make a success of this public sector transport operation.

Question put:—

The House divided:Ayes 86, Noes 15.

Divison No 132.
AYES
11.25 a.m.


Archer, Peter
Graham, Ted
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Armstrong, Ernest
Harper, Joseph
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Noble, Mike


Bates, Alf
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Owen, Dr David


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Peart, Rt Hon Fred


Bishop, E. S.
Hefter, Eric S.
Pendry, Tom


Brown, Hugh D. (Proven)
Hooley, Frank
Price, William (Rugby)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Hunter, Adam
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Buchan, Norman
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Carmichael, Neil
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Robinson, Geoffrey


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
John, Brynmor
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Coleman, Donald
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Kaufman. Gerald
Silkin, Rt. Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Lambie, David
Snape, Peter


Cryer,Bob
Lamond, James
Spearing, Nigel


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Loyden, Eddie
Stoddart, David


Davidson, Arthur
Luard, Evan
Strang, Gavin


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
McElhone. Frank
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Dormand, J. D.
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Mackenzie, Gregor
Tinn, James


Dunn, James A.
Mackintosh, John P.
Urwin, T. W.


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
McNamara, Kevin
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


English, Michael
Madden, Max
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Marks, Kenneth
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Freeson, Reginald
Millan, Bruce



George, Bruce
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gilbert, Dr John
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Mr. A. W. Stallard and


Golding, John
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Mr.James Hamilton




NOES


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Penhaligon, David
Welsh, Andrew


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Rathbone, Tim
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Henderson, Douglas
Reid, George
Winterton, Nicholas


Hooson, Emyln
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)



Marten, Neil
Thompson, George
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Moate, Roger
Wall, Patrick
Mr. Ian Gow and




Mr. Nicholas Ridley.

ELECTRICITY (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 67


(Public Bills relating exclusively to Scotland),That the Bill be committed to a Scottish Standing Committee. —[Mr. Thomas Cox.]

Question agreed to.

ELECTRICITY (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of this Session to increase the statutory limits on the amounts outstanding in respect of borrowings by the Scottish Electricity Boards, and to make provision for compensating the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board for deficits incurred or to be incurred by that Board in supplying electricity to the British Aluminium Company Limited for the operation of that Company's aluminium reduction plant at Invergordon, it is expedient to authorize—

(1) such increases in the sums which by or under section 47(7) of the Electricity Act 1947 are to be or may be charged on or issued out of or paid into the Consolidated Fund, or the National Loans Fund, as may result from provisions of the said Act of this Session increasing to £1,950 million the aggregate limit imposed by that section on the amounts outstanding in respect of borrowings by the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board and the South of Scotland Electricity Board;
(2) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of expenses of the Secretary of State incurred under the said Act in compensating the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board for deficits incurred or to be incurred by that Board in supplying electricity to the British Aluminium Company Limited for the operation of that Company's aluminium reduction plant at Invergordon and for the payment into the Consolidated Fund of sums recovered under the said Act in connection with that purpose by the Secretary of State. —[Mr. Thomas Cox.]

HOUSE OF COMMONS MEMBERS' FUND

Resolved,
That one tenth of the sums deducted or set aside in the current year from the salaries of Members of Parliament under section one of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1939 and one tenth of the contribution determined by the Treasury for the current year under section one of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1957, be appropriated for the purposes of section four of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1948. —[Mr.Albert Roberts.]

EUROPEAN ASSEMBLY (DIRECT ELECTIONS)

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): I remind the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the two amendments to the motion.
I will now explain to the House the procedure on the motion and the amendments. It is as follows.
First, I will put the Question on paragraph 1 of the motion.
Secondly, I will put the Question, That the names in paragraph 2, from Miss Betty Boothroyd to Mr. Roy Hattersley, inclusive, be members of the Committee.
Thirdly, I will call the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) to move the first amendment, and it may be convenient for both amendments to be discussed together. I will then put the Question on the first amendment.
Fourthly, I will put the Question, That the names in paragraph 2, from Mr. John Horam to Mr. Neil Kinnock, inclusive, be members of the Committee.
Fifthly, I will call the right hon. Member for Battersea, North to move his second amendment. I will then put the Question on that amendment.
Sixthly, I will put the Question, That the remaining named Members be members of the Committee.
Seventhly, I will put the Questions separately on paragraphs 3 and 4.

Motion made and Question proposed,
That a Select Committee be appointed to consider proposals for Direct Elections to the European Assembly and arrangements requiring action by Parliament and by the European Community following the Government's commitment to proceed to such elections: —[Mr. Thomas Cox].

11.34 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Briefly, I think that many hon. Members would wish to support this motion. I think that all would agree that the motion and the terms of reference for the Select Committee are excellent. The terms of reference refer to "proposals". The former Foreign Secretary, now the Prime Minister, was good enough to set out, on 10th March in Written Answers in Hansard, certain proposals that have been made. I think that they were probably based on the Official Journal,


Volume 18, column 32, of 11th February 1975. No doubt the Select Committee will be concerned with those proposals.
The second point is the reference to "the Government's commitment". I think that everyone in the House knows that the Government have made a commitment here. However, I think that it would be right for me to read an extract from a letter dated 19th November 1975 which was written to me by the then Foreign Secretary, now Prime Minister. He wrote in reply to a question of mine:
As to the legal effect of any recommendation the Council may make, I agree with you that, in and of itself, it can have no binding force. Nothing I have said in any way prejudges the right of national Parliaments in the matter; indeed in my speech on 10 November, I went out of my way to stress that I for one would not take Parliament's acquiescence for granted.
The letter was signed "Yours sincerely, James Callaghan."
I am sure that everyone in the House wishes this Committee to get down to work as soon as possible. Therefore, I commend the terms of reference to the House and hope that the motion will be approved.

11.37 p.m.

Mr. Roger Moate: I regret that I must disagree with the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). I am afraid that I cannot welcome the establishment of this Select Committee. I shall put my views fairly briefly.
I do not think that there should be direct elections. Therefore, if there are not to be direct elections, clearly there should not be a Select Committee. If we are to have direct elections, however I would welcome a Select Committee. But if we are to have a Select Committee, it should not be composed in the manner proposed by the Government today.
My reasons for opposing the principle can be stated equally briefly. They are few. First there is the reference to a "commitment". Admittedly the motion refers to "the Government's commitment", but even the question of the Government's commitment is a matter of some doubt. It will be recalled that prior to the referendum the Government quite positively and clearly reserved their posi-

tion, so at that time there was clearly no commitment, and at subsequent Council of Europe meetings again the whole question has been left in doubt as to the nature of any commitment. But if the Government feel that they have some moral commitment, the wording itself is quite interesting, because it refers to "the Government's commitment". I should have thought that by that phraseology they are admitting that there is not a treaty commitment. If there was a clear treaty obligation, I should have thought that they would have said so in their motion, or one might argue that the words are unnecessary. Therefore, we should take very careful note of the wording that the Government have used.
My next objection is that I believe that direct elections will do a great disservice to democracy, and certainly a disservice to the United Kingdom and to the true cause of European unity, because I believe that direct elections will be seen ultimately to be a meaningless farce. When it comes to the point of the British electorate having to vote in constituencies of 500,000 each, or 1 million each if other proposals are implemented, to send Members of Parliament —if that is the right phrase; I doubt even that —to an Assembly that will be totally powerless, this will be seen as an exercise in futility and impotence that will do a great disservice to the very name of democracy.
Members of that Assembly, who are, we understand, to be very highly paid persons, will do so little that they will be seen to be the most impotent political eunuchs in democratic history. This will be such a disservice that this House should have none of it.
I feel the House should not proceed to having a Select Committee on the basis that we should not contemplate moving to direct elections. With regard to the make-up of the Committee, there are two points which, I think, are relevant at this stage. I cannot see why there should be a Minister on the Committee, as such. That seems to suggest that the Committee, if it does not have a Minister, is incapable of obtaining the views of the Government from either civil servants or Ministers who are summoned before it.
Another suggestion might be that somehow one ought to have a Minister on the Committee because only he knows the nature of the commitment which the


Government have made with regard to some of the details on direct elections.

Mr. Neil Marten: What would happen if the Minister sitting on the Front Bench was on the Committee and the Foreign Secretary was called in front of us? Would the Minister of State at the Foreign Office really cross-examine his own Foreign Secretary in a public Select Committee?

Mr. Moate: I think my hon. Friend has a valid point, because the task of a House of Commons Committee is to scrutinise the proposals of the Executive. It therefore seems a dubious proposition to have a member of the Executive sitting on the Committee. It must inhibit the activities of that Committee. The only argument I can think of is that the Minister knows more than the members of the Committee. If, however, the Government entered into a private commitment, that information ought to be made available to the full House.
The last point I want to make relates simply to the balance of the Committee. We have had a lengthy argument that the balance of Committee should reflect the political balance of the House. Yet this Committee does not. There are seven members of the Government party and six members from all the Opposition parties combined. I thought we were to have equal representation. I hope my hon. Friend on the Front Bench, and hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House, will not tolerate a situation in which only four members of the Conservative Party are represented on this Committee. For these general reasons, and one or two specific reasons, I do not feel inclined to accept this proposition.

Question put and agreed to.

Question, That Miss Betty Boothroyd, Mr. John Cartwright, Mr. William Clark, Mr. Alexander Fletcher, Mr. Bryan Gould, Mr. Roy Hattersley, be members of the Committee, put and agreed to.

11.42 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Jay: (Battersea, North): I beg to move,
Mr Eric S. Heifer be a member of the Committee.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment we may also discuss the amendment, that Mr. Neil Marten be a member of the Committee.

Mr. Jay: I am glad to see the amendment has received wide support, including the support of the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) who is not present but who has put his name to it. Recently this House has rightly emphasised the principle that membership of Select Committees is decided by this House and not by the Government. I hope that we shall adhere to that principle tonight.
I welcome the fact that the Government have recently improved the terms of reference of the suggested Select Committee. The Committee, in my view, should certainly be required to consider the proposal for direct elections as such and not just the machinery for carrying out such elections. Indeed, this follows from the fact that Article 138 of the Treaty of Rome emphatically does not impose an obligation on member States of the EEC to introduce direct elections. It merely requires the Council or the Commissioner of the EEC to prepare arrangements for such direct elections and recommend them to member States.
The Parliaments of member States, including our own, are perfectly free to take what decision they choose in the interests of their own countries. I also welcome the fact that the Government's motion makes clear that it is the Government, and not Parliament, who have entered into a commitment to introduce such direct elections. It is not for the Government to attempt to commit Parliament without consulting it about direct elections or, indeed, anything else.
Since, therefore, this Select Committee will have the extremely important job of considering the whole proposal for direct elections to the Community Assembly, we must ensure that it is properly balanced, just as the House has rightly ensured in the past week that the Committee of Selection is properly balanced.
There are in the House devotees of the Community who think that it can do no wrong; there are devotees who do not go quite so far and stop short at the prospect of direct elections; there are the sceptics who are not enthusiastic for one or the other. The aim of these modest and reasonable amendments. which I am sure the Government will have the good sense to accept, is to ensure that all these points of view are fairly represented —that is to say, that


moderates as well as militants are on the Select Committee. I speak as a moderate.
Under the set-up proposed by the Government, the devotees in the Committee would have outnumbered the sceptics by about seven to one. That would not have produced balanced or reasonable or happy Select Committee. I am sure that everyone here agrees that the addition of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) and the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) to almost any Committee be an improvement. I also feel that when these two hon. Members agree, they must be right. In that spirit, I commend the amendments to the House.

11.47 p.m.

Mr. Neil Marten: I support the amendment because I think that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) should be a member of the Select Committee. He has a fine record, an inquisitive mind, and would be a searching member. Although I am on the opposite side to him politically, I have the greatest confidence that, as a true democrat, he would go into the whole question —perhaps rather more thoroughly than some other members representing any party.
I do not rise to speak in my own support, which would be embarrassing, but the whole of the Common Market issue has been across parties, in various degrees of balance. Therefore, we cannot set up a Select Committee on the basis of party. What other guide do we have than across the parties? It is the referendum, in which the voting was two to one in favour of remaining in the EEC. Should not the Select Committee be based on that fair apportionment of two pro-Marketeers and one anti-Marketeer, to use the old expression? That is the best and most sensible guide. The Select Committee is proposed to have 11 memers who are pro-Marketeer as compared with two "antis". That would be a travesty of democracy. The referendum was the classic example of democracy.
All the Conservatives proposed to be members of the Committee voted for the Common Market. Not one Conservative is proposed as a member who was

opposed to the Common Market or was a sceptic about it. I believe that the House of Commons should express a view and that these matters should not be left entirely to the Whips.
The Leader of the House has expressed the view that there should be equality on Select Committees. On that basis alone, rather than on the basis of the referendum, there should be one more Member of the Opposition on the Select Committee. With all modesty, I propose that the person named in the second amendment might possibly be that person.
Perhaps I may also ask when the Select Committee is likely to begin its deliberations. Indeed, how can it start until we know the number of people whom it is proposed should sit in the European Parliament? Unless we know whether the number is to be 198 or 325, or whatever the proposal may be, it does not make sense to consider these matters.
I hope that the Select Committee will not begin its work until the Council of Ministers has come forward with its proposals. I hope that it will speak with one voice and decide upon a figure. That is the linchpin of the work of the Select Committee.
So far, we have had no proposals in respect of the European Parliament. We do not know whether the membership of the European Parliament will involve 197, 300, or 500 Members. We have not had any idea what will happen whether, for example, Greece, Turkey, or Portugal join the EEC. If all those countries join, we may eventually have a European Parliament with a membership of as many as 1,500 Members, most of whom may be fogbound in Ankara or Lisbon.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. At the moment I would remind the hon. Member that we are debating whether "Mr. Eric S. Heffer" should be inserted after "Mr. Roy Hattersley".

Mr. Marten: Perhaps I should bring the discussion back to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton. What happens if the hon. Gentleman seeks to call for persons and papers? Could we send for persons from the Commission to come to give evidence here? What persons


and papers would the Select Committee be able to send for? I hope that the Minister will be able to answer these questions.
Furthermore, the hon. Member for Walton might ask for papers from the Commission. Could he ask for the minutes of the meeting at which the Council of Ministers discussed the subject of direct elections? Would we not be setting a great precedent if we got inside the secret meetings of the Council of Ministers? If we pass this provision, shall we be allowed to examine such matters?
There are a number of matters on which we should be given ministerial answers. Let me say in conclusion that the selection of the hon. Member for Walton to serve on the Select Committee will mean that the hon. Gentleman will carry out a splendid job in getting to the truth of things.

11.55 p.m.

The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Roy Hattersley): I have three brief comments on the amendment moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay). I thank my right hon. Friend for acknowledging that the Government have been anxious to accommodate hon. Members by making three specific and substantial alterations to the terms of reference of the Committee. It is a matter of dispute whether accommodation of critics in this area stops them from being critics or encourages them. We have accommodated hon. Members in three ways. I again accommodate my right hon. Friend by acknowledging, as I have done many times, that these are matters for Parliament to decide, on which the Government cannot commit the House and would not attempt to do so.
For that reason we are gladly prepared to write the nature of the Government's commitment into the terms of reference. The only issue that divides us, with the exception of one hon. Gentleman, is the composition of the Committee. I have only two things to say about that. The first is that I accept that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer) and the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) would make admirable members of the Committee. The House

is packed with right hon. and hon. Members who would make admirable members of the Committee but who cannot be appointed to it.
I can give three examples. My hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Roper), whose knowledge of the Community is unequalled anywhere in the House, would be an admirable member. The right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) has some experience of the Community, in negotiating our membership, but he has not achieved a place on the Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh), whose academic qualifications as well as his political experience might be thought to make him an ideal candidate, is not a member of the Committee.
This is simply because the House cannot, by its nature, appoint to a Committee of this size all those who are qualified to serve upon it. The Government are not quarreling for a moment with those contentions made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North, or with the contention made by the hon. Member for Banbury, about my hon. Friend the Member for Walton —and by inference, about himself —that they would both be good members of the Committee. What we believe is that the Committee has to be of a size which will enable it to work speedily, just as soon as some of my hon. Friends allow it to begin, so that it can move in parallel with the Government, who must make some speed. I am surprised to hear the hon. Member for Banbury ask about the starting date. The terms of reference enable the Committee to start when it wishes and enable it to consider the numbers of any possible European Parliament.

Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is my right hon. Friend replying to the points which have been made or is the Leader of the House to speak at some stage? Many of us are under the impression that, since this is a matter dealing with the selection of the Committee, it is clearly a matter for the Leader of the House rather than any other member of the Government.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that whether the Leader of the House speaks is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Hattersley: I will make my final point, which is that we have passed the time when we can or ought to make assessments of these matters according to whether we are pro- or anti-Common Market or even according to the sophistications of the principle raised by my right hon. Friend, which makes the same point as the pro- or anti-arguments. If we accept the verdict of the British people, we are all to a greater or lesser degree now pro-Common Market. I certainly accept the verdict of the British people.
What the Government have tried to do is to give support to the Committee whose membership will result in its doing the job we agree is necessary, which is to provide the House of Commons with guidance on how the Government should behave when they turn their mind to these important matters.

Mr. Marten: The right hon. Gentleman said that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) was not on the Committee, despite his experience. I wonder whether my right hon. and learned Friend applied to be a member of the Committee, as I did. I made a specific request to my Chief Whip to be on the Committee in my first speech on the subject. I doubt very much whether my right hon. and learned Friend did so.
Second, the right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that 13 was about right. What is the difference between 13 and 15? Can he explain that?

Mr. Hattersley: What goes on between Opposition Members and their Chief Whip is hardly a matter for me. What is a matter for me is the simple demonstration, which I hope to make as a compliment to the hon. Gentleman and to my hon. Friend, that no one is suggesting that they would not be admirable members of the Committee. I am simply saying that the House is full of people who are potentially admirable members of the Committee, but that all cannot be accommodated because we genuinely want the House of Commons to move with the speed which enables it to give constant advice to the Government on how they should proceed with these matters.
Therefore. although this is essentially a matter for the House, obviously it is

the Government's view that a Committee of this present size is most likely to serve the purposes we understand the House to want. For that reason, we hope that the amendments will be defeated.

12.1 a.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The Minister of State has certainly acquainted the House with a most remarkable event. He said that, in compiling the names proposed for this Committee, the assumption had been made that all Members of the House were on the same footing in respect of British membership of the EEC. In that case, it is a remarkable statistical outturn that 11 of them should formerly have been in favour and only two should formerly have been opposed to that proposition. Surely it cannot quite have happened that way. The House should take note of the remarkable mathematical result of the intended neutrality of the selection of names —that the attempt to select the names of hon. Members who would work speedily and efficiently turned out this remarkable result.
But, then, it should not pass without comment that the right hon. Gentleman said that all hon. Members of this House were in a sense equally committed to British membership. It should be recalled that, in the words of the Government themselves, continuing British membership is dependent on the continuing assent of this House. If that means anything, it means that, from time to time, this House, and therefore hon. Members of this House, can revise their view or decide that the view which has been taken ought to be altered or reconsidered. It is not therefore correct to say that, by reason of the referendum, Members even of this House, let alone of any future House, are committed. It is not right that the contrary should be placed upon the record.

12.3 a.m.

Mr. Bob Cryer: The Minister's arguments have to be answered. I agree that this is a matter for Parliament. When my right hon. Friend said that, he meant that hon. Members would come here and assess the debate, listen to the arguments and decide whether my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer) had qualities which made him suitable for this Select Committee.
On the basis of the arguments advanced in a democratically-elected assembly of free men, they would decide the composition of the Committee. The fact that 11 of those proposed are pro-Market and only two are anti-Market would, of course, be totally disregarded.
But we know that that is not the case, that it is a facade. For anyone to say that is to present us with a little less than the total picture. We know that the payroll vote, the people who are in the Government —many of them doing an extremely fine job —are here because they have been requested to be here to ensure that this matter is pushed through. That is not a case of an assembly of free men coming to listen to the arguments about whether someone should be a member of the Select Committee.
All that we ask, as Members of Parliament, is that this Committee should perhaps have a little more balance and a little more quality for the purpose of searching out some of the defects which may exist in direct elections. I do not imagine that even the most fervent pro-European would say that direct elections are the simplest proposition ever to come before this Parliament. Therefore, it might be a good idea for people to look at the matter from a distance and to say objectively that these difficulties have to be recognised, examined and reported to Parliament.
All that we ask is that people with critical faculties should be added to the Committee. What is wrong with that, in a free Parliament of people, listening to the arguments and making a decision? Why should people organise themselves tonight in order to stop two hon. Members being added to a Select Committee? These questions have not been answered, and the waffle that we have heard is no substitute for some reasoned, measured arguments to advance the contention that two anti-Marketeers should not be added to the Committee in order to give that degree of authority which, if it came out and said that direct elections were of enormous advantage, the presence of those two hon. Members, being anti-Marketeers, would give its report.

Mr. Marten: I do not think the Government will give the right answer. It is that they are afraid to have people on

that Committee who will be too searching.

Mr. Cryer: The hon. Gentleman suggests the conclusion to which one is inevitably driven. There is no argument that we have heard tonight to suggest that the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) and my hon. Friend the Member for Walton should not be added to the Committee, and I regret that very much.
I am one of those who want to see the majority party pushing through legislation. I do not see Parliament as a remote institution. It is a political instrument to be used by the Labour Party. But there are certain matters which can legitimately be argued to be matters for Parliament, and I think that this is one.
Parliament has to see that there is a balance and an element of searching in a Select Committee. If we were discussing any other Select Committee, no hon. Member would say "We want people on it who will go along with this proposal". Hon. Members would say "On every Select Committee, we want intelligent, searching people." Why not for this Committee?
I think that we should vote on this proposal, and I hope that all those right hon. and hon. Members who feel that there should be some strength added to this Committee will vote for the inclusion of these two hon. Members.

12.8 a.m.

Mr. Douglas Hurd: I am not sure that the basis on which the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) spoke was quite correct. Why do we have to assume that we are fighting again the same battle, with the same balance of forces, that we fought throughout the referendum campaign? Was not the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) right when he said that people changed their minds? Was not one of the notable aspects of our debate on direct elections that two of my distinguished right hon. Friends who were against membership of the EEC spoke strongly in favour of direct elections? Is not it quite reasonable that those responsible, not including myself, for putting forward the names should take account of the tenor of that debate, which was held on this subject of direct elections, and not one of our previous debates on membership of the Community?
I do not know the views of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) on direct elections, because I do not think that he spoke in that debate. I remember his strongly pro-European speeches on earlier occasions. So I do not know. However, it seems to me that the balance of that debate is a reasonable basis for the selection before us.
I was surprised to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) make one point about speed. I believe that the chief concern of this House should be to get this Select Committee going quickly. We owe it to the House to get a Select Committee going which will advise the Government in their negotiations in Europe. I remember that we had our debate in the same week as the Summit meeting, when the European Council failed to resolve the matter, handed it to the Foreign Ministers, and said "Come back to us in July." We are now half-way between that Summit meeting and the next and we have not even begun to equip ourselves to advise or contest what the Government are doing in Europe.

Mr. Jay: Would not the acceptance by the Government of the amendments be an excellent way of speeding up procedure?

Mr. Hurd: I am not sure that it would, if time were spent re-arguing the whole question of our membership of the Community and our attitude to it.
We have not considered how fast Europe is moving. The Government are now discussing important proposals from the President of France and we have not yet geared ourselves to get into the act. We need a reasonably compact, quick moving and efficiently organised Select Committee. We have wasted six weeks and we have only another six weeks before the next European Council. My main concern is not about membership but that the timing of the meeting of the Committee should be organised so that we can get work immediately.

Mr. Eric Heffer: (Liverpool, Walton): The hon. Gentleman say that he does not know my views on direct elections because I did not speak during the debate. I was at other meetings at that time. It is

extraordinary to argue that he needs to know my feelings and desires about direct elections in advance.

Mr. Hurd: I said that I did not know the hon. Member's views. I was referring to the suggestion that the Select Committee should not start work until July.

Mr. Marten: If I concede that we should start work tomorrow, would my hon. Friend accept that the Committee should increase its membership from 13 to 15? I suspect that he feels that my interrogations might slow up the Committee. Will he deny that?

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend made it clear that he would wish to go back into matters.

Mr. Marten: No.

Mr. Hurd: The speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury and the hon. Member for Walton indicated that they believed the matter related to arguments about our membership and that the balance should be the same. The key issue is that we should be equipped with a reasonably compact Committee to deal with an important range of subjects.

Mr. Spearing: Does the hon. Gentleman not think that it is strange that two Front Benchers who are members of the Committee should argue against the amendments? Should not that flash a yellow warning to the House?

Mr. Hurd: The decision is for the House. I am concentrating on the prime need to get going quickly. That aspect has been neglected. I would prefer a Committee on the lines originally suggested, rather than one which would clearly cover wider aspects.

12.14 a.m.

Mr. Frank Hooley: I had hoped that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House would make a contribution to this discussion, because he is a distinguished parliamentarian and I believe that he is anxious to maintain the reputation of the House in this kind of matter.
It is very unusual for the House to proceed to a vote on the composition of a Select Committee, though it is not unknown. That reflects the fact that in setting up Select Committees the usual


channels and the powers-that-be take considerable care to balance feelings and opinions within the House at large.
There is clearly a minority feeling that the composition of the Committee should be amended slightly. No one is suggesting removing any hon. Member whose name is on the Order Paper. It is simply suggested that two hon. Members with certain views about this profound subject might be added to strengthen the Committee.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will appreciate this feeling of Parliament. I hope that he will appreciate that the Committee will discuss matters which will, within the framework of the Treaty of Rome, concern the relations of Parliament with whatever Assembly may eventually arise, and that therefore if there is a strong feeling in the House perhaps we should have the two additional hon. Members who have been nominated. That would not damage or undermine the work that the Committee must undertake in due course.
I appeal to my right hon. Friend to comment on this point and to reinforce his undoubted stature as a parliamentarian by bowing to the wish of an important minority about the composition of the Committee. It would be a pity if the matter were forced to a vote. I hope that my right hon. Friend will exhibit some Front-Bench generosity on the issue.

12.17 a.m.

Mr. John P. Mackintosh: I shall be grateful if you will clarify for me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether there will be two separate Divisions on the amendments.
There may be a case for the House exercising a little jurisdiction over who should be on Committees. I have felt somewhat aggravated recently on other grounds about the way in which Standing Committees and Select Committees have been packed with hon. Members who met with the approval of the Government on different cases. The House should from time to time exercise its view that it is entitled to nominate and perhaps push through—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I made clear at the beginning that there would be a separate vote on each of the two names proposed.

Mr. Mackintosh: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I should be prepared to support the nomination of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) but not of the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten). That is not because I have any lack of respect for the hon. Gentleman, but, having served with him on a Select Committee to do with European affairs, I know that his contribution would be precisely as many hon. Members believe and that he would re-fight the referendum battle on every issue that came up. His contribution would not be on the merits or demerits of direct elections but would be a prolonged rearguard battle of the kind he lost in the referendum and would be only a waste of the Committee's time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. At present we are discussing "Mr. Eric S. Heffer".

Mr. Marten: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down—

Mr. Mackintosh: I have sat down.

Mr. Marten: I was on my feet before the hon. Gentleman sat down.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman did not give way I call the Leader of the House.

12.19 a.m.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) asked me to intervene, and I do so briefly because I very much hope that the House will reach a conclusion on this matter tonight, as we want to set up the Committee.
The Government have been forthcoming in the way in which they have dealt with this matter. It was largely as a result of representations by hon. Members that it was decided to have the Committee to look into the whole question of direct elections. That was the response by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in the earlier debate on the matter.
We then put down the terms of reference for the Committee. Representations were made by several of my hon. Friends, and in the light of these representations


we altered the terms of reference, because we appreciated the view put to us on these matters.
We have presented to the House the names of hon. Members who, in the Government's view, would be excellent members of the Committee. It would be wrong for anyone to suggest that any members of the Committee would not be able to carry out these functions. There are some of my hon. Friends —it would be invidious to distinguish some from others, but I will name two, the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Gould) and the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock)—who no one could say were not capable of carrying out the most searching investigations into these matters. We believe that the names suggested—certainly those for which the Government were responsible—would be very good members of the Committee. However, it is for the House to settle the matter, and whatever view we take, I hope that we can settle it this evening, either by vote, or by acceptance —although I suspect that it will be by vote. It would be the wrong response to what the Government have already done to get the Committee set up if there were further hold-ups in the proceedings beyond tonight.

Mr. Heller: Is my right hon. Friend saying that the names put forward from this side of the House were put forward by the Government?

Mr. Foot: Of course they were.

Mr. Heffer: My right hon. Friend says "Of course they were", but if the

names were selected by the Government, what is the point of having debates and discussions in this House? It is not a matter for Parliament. It has been determined by the Government.

Mr. Foot: It is a matter for Parliament. That is why we are having this debate, and that is why we shall have a vote. In setting up the Committee in the first place, the Government sought to take account of views which were different from ours. But the final decision about membership of the Committee will be taken by the House tonight. If we do not come to a decision tonight we shall postpone the moment when the Select Committee can begin to look at the whole question of direct elections. It would be a mistake if the House, having invited us to set up such a Committee, were to frustrate the achievement of that aim.

Mr. Hooky: I accept what my right hon. Friend says about accommodating our wishes over the terms of reference. It is not my view that the House should not set up the Committee, but I feel that it would wrap up the matter in an agreeable manner if the Leader of the House could express a willingness to meet the strong feeling within the House on membership of the Committee.

Mr. Marten: I take up the hon. Gentleman's point—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman had, in fact, resumed his seat.

Question put, That the amendment be made: —

The House divided: Ayes 25, Noes 76.

Division No. 133.]
AYES
[12.25 a.m.


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Loyden, Eddie
Spearing, Nigel


Buchan, Norman
Mackintosh, John P.
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Marten, Neil
Welsh, Andrew


Cryer,Bob
Moate, Roger
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


English, Michael
Noble, Mike
Winterton, Nicholas


George, Bruce
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch



Heffer, Eric S.
Reid, George
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Henderson, Douglas
Robinson, Geoffrey
Mr. Frank Hooley and


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Mr. Max Madden


Lamond, James
Ross, William (Londonderry)





NOES


Archer, Peter
Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Armstrong, Ernest
Coleman, Donald
Dunn, James A.


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)


Bates, Alf
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Davidson, Arthur
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)


Bishop, E. S.
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Freeson, Reginald


Brown, Hugh D. (Proven)
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Gilbert, Dr John


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Dormand, J. D.
Golding, John




Graham, Ted
Mackenzie, Gregor
Silkin, Rt. Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Gray, Hamish
Melialieu, J. P. W.
Silvester, Fred


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Marks, Kenneth
Snape, Peter


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Millan, Bruce
Stallard, A. W.


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Hooson, Emyln
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Strang, Gavin


Howell, Rt Hon Denis
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Hunter, Adam
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Hurd, Douglas
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Tinn, James


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Urwin, T. W.


John, Brynmor
Owen, Dr David
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Pearl, Rt Hon Fred
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Kaufman, Gerald
Pendry, Tom
Weatherill, Bernard


Le Marchant, Spencer
Penhaligon, David
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Price, William (Rugby)



Luard, Evan
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Mr. Joseph Harper and


McElhone, Frank
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Mr. David Stoddart.


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed, That Mr. Neil Marten be a member of the Committee."—[Mr. Jay. ]

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Question is, That Mr. George Reid, Sir Anthony Royle and Mr. David Steel be members of the Committee.

Mr. Marten: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Prime Minister's motion refers to "one hour after it"—the debate — "has been entered upon". The debate having started at 25 minutes to twelve o'clock, we have now passed

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 27, Noes 67.

Division No. 134.1
AYES
[12.34 a.m.


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Lamond, James
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Buchan, Norman
Loyden, Eddie
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Marten, Nell
Spearing, Nigel


Cryer,Bob
Moate, Roger
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


English, Michael
Noble, Mike
Welsh, Andrew


George, Bruce
Penhaligon, David
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Heffer, Eric S.
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Winterton, Nicholas


Henderson, Douglas
Reid, George



Hooson, Emyln
Robinson, Geoffrey
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Mr. Max Madden and




Mr. Frank Hooley.




NOES


Archer, Peter
Gray, Hamish
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Armstrong, Ernest
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Owen, Dr David


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Harper, Joseph
Pearl, Rt Hon Fred


Bishop, E. S.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Pendry, Tom


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Price, William (Rugby)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Howell, Rt Hon Denis
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Hunter, Adam
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Coleman, Donald
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
John, Brynmor
Silkin, Rt. Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Snape, Peter


Davidson, Arthur
Kaufman, Gerald
Stallard, A. W.


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Luard, Evan
Strang, Gavin


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Dormand, J. D.
McElhone, Frank
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Dunn, James A.
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Tinn, James


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Urwin, T. W.


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Mackintosh, John P.
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Marks, Kenneth
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Freeson, Reginald
Millan, Bruce
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Gilbert, Dr John
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)



Golding, John
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Graham, Ted
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Mr. Alf Bates and



Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Mr. A. W. Stallard.

that hour. Therefore, is there any right to move any further motions?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has not read the whole of the motion. It deals with opposed business. Unopposed business is not covered by it.

Mr. Marten: This is opposed business. Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Objection taken. Debate to be resumed this day.

TEACHER TRAINING (SCOTLAND)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Coleman.]

12.45 a.m.

Mr. John P. Mackintosh: I am grateful for this opportunity to raise a matter on the Adjournment. I asked for this Adjournment debate because of the impact on Scotland of a letter from the Secretary of State to the universities and colleges of education, sent on 22nd March, indicating severe, not to say Draconian, cuts in the intake into colleges of education, cuts to be applied as of this year for students going into colleges of education this October.
Perhaps I may weary the House by giving the details. The letter from the Secretary of State said that there would be cuts of the order which I shall describe. Taking the year 1975–76, the intake into training for teachers for primary schools is about 2,500. The proposed cut for 1976–77 reduces this figure to 1,450. That is a reduction of 1,050 in the intake of both graduate and diploma students for training for primary school qualifications. The letter also requested a cut in the intake for the secondary teachers training diploma, the B.Ed., from 3,300 to 2,700, a reduction of 600.
The cuts in these two types of teacher training are extreme by any standards in the history of Scottish education. They have come with very sharp notice on the teaching profession and on the student concerned. Perhaps I may go into a little of the detail which underlay the circular sent out by the Secretary of State. It is proper that we should look into the facts underlying the Secretary of State's decision. I will set them out.
There are at present 620,000 children in primary schools in Scotland. With the decline in the birth rate it is anticipated that the number of children in primary schools will fall by 1984–85 to 469,000. The second assumption underlying the circular is the one that I find the hardest to take. That is that the standard of staffing, the teacher-pupil ratio, will remain the same as set out in the Scottish Education Department's Circular 819 for the rest of the decade—that is, we are to see no improvement

in staff-pupil ratios until 1980, and it will not be clear then, but at least it will be reviewed then.
The circular said that primary schools, having 27,804 teachers, have 1,096 teachers over the Circular 819 standards. It is admitted that in certain parts of Scotland some schools are still understaffed. Here we go into rather arbitrary assumptions which tend to constitute manpower planning. Those arbitrary assumptions are that the wastage, or departure, of teachers from the profession has fluctuated between 4·1 per cent. and 9·6 per cent. in different years for reasons which have not adequately been examined. The Department proposes to take an arbitrary average of 7·5 per cent. wastage per annum for the purpose of its calculation of teacher stock.
Secondly, the Department expects a figure of 15 per cent. wastage of boys and girls going through the colleges to qualify, and comes to the conclusion that it would need about 1,500 or 1,600 teachers coming into primary schools each year. At the present level of output of 2,500, it says that at the end of the decade there would be more primary teachers available than could be employed. It is interesting that it says "at the end of the decade". It is not confident enough to pin this down to a nearer date.
Another interesting point is that contained in the figure for primary education is the diploma intake from the schools and the intake from the universities of post graduates who deliberately want to do a primary qualification and to teach in primary schools. The Department has made the arbitrary distinction to allow 250 graduates a year into primary school training, and the rest would be kept for diploma students. I do not know on what basis they make this distinction, because it is clear that the number of graduate students going into primary schools could significantly increase. Why the Department decided to keep this particular balance between diploma and graduate students I do not know. Nor do I know on what criteria it did so.
I turn to the area of secondary schools. In this situation the figures given by the SED show that they are now 398,000 pupils in secondary schools. Unlike


primary schools, the number in these schools will go up in 1978–79 to 412,000, but due to the decline in the birth rate, the figure will drop to 374,000 by 1984–85. Again we get the depressing assumption that that staff-pupil ratio will remain the same as recommended in the report on secondary school staffing in 1973. It will remain the same for the entire decade.
Looking at the stock of teachers, the SED says there are 26,303 teachers, 416 more than needed by the old Red Book or secondary school staffing criteria. Of course, it admits, quite fairly, that in the Strathclyde region the situation is different and that there is a serious shortage of teachers even at the moment. In particular, it admits that this is more serious in Roman Catholic schools, and that the situation is particularly bad in certain subjects. It admits that there is a shortage of 500 teachers in the Strathclyde area.
There is the curious idea in the circular that more teachers should be trained in Jordanhill, and in the West, because it is assumed that teachers cannot train in the East of Scotland and work in the West. This is a curious idea when what matters are qualifications and the capacity to do the job.
With the secondary schools, the assumption is that although in the past wastage from the teaching profession has varied between 5·4 and 7·6 per cent., the average again is to be 7·5 per cent., and again the Department accepts a 15 per cent. wastage of students going through the colleges or the universities. As a result, the Department estimates that it could do with an output of about 2,700 from the colleges now, whereas at the moment it has 3,300. Hence this sudden and rapid instruction to the colleges and universities that there will have to be a reduction.
I have tried to set out the facts in this case in the light of what the Department has argued. Now I want to look at the merits of the case. First, I am not arguing, as some do, that every person who possesses a teacher's qualifications has an inherent right to a job in a school. We have never in Scottish education assumed that if one has a law degree the State has an obligation to find one a job as a lawyer, or that if one has a medical degree there is an obliga-

tion on the State to employ one as a doctor. It is legitimate to say to men and women who want to be teachers "There will only be X jobs for you. If you are prepared to proceed at your own risk, and take qualifications, you are entitled to do so and to try to get a job."
But it is a mistake to cut down the intake now for short-run economic considerations when we may well want to revise the staff-pupil ratio in the years to come, when we might find that the situation changes and when men and women who obtain teacher qualifications have them for life. It is scandalous to take that view.
I hope that I am not being unduly kind to the colleges, but I think that they are providing a general education. What is wrong with getting a teaching certificate and going into another occupation? What is wrong with having teaching qualifications so that one could choose to change to that occupation later in life? I am not arguing that these people have an inherent right to a teaching job but that if they want to train as teachers they should have the choice and opportunity open to them. A member of my family trained as a teacher without intending to be one. He said that it was a good insurance certificate for the future if he could not get employment elsewhere.
One of the reasons why this manpower tuning or planning is such rubbish, as those with experience know well, is that people go into teacher-training qualifications, go into teaching work and then leave for other jobs. The wastage depends much upon economic conditions. If the conditions are good, the outflow from the profession is high and we want more teachers. It is difficult for even the most experienced staff of universities or colleges to predict those who want the teaching-training diploma at the end of their degree course as a kind of fall-back position and those who want it because they are dedicated teachers. It is unsatisfactory for the Government to take this kind of decision into their own hands and to pre-empt the situation, saying that they can determine who is or who is not entitled to go into the occupation.
The universities have pressed upon me strongly that the colleges have been accepting people and have to reach a


final decision by July as to whom they are to take in, and in March they are given a sudden instruction to cut the intake vastly for the forthcoming October.
How do the people concerned propose to act? No criteria have been laid down. Is the process to be on the basis of "First come, first served"? Is it to be confined to those already admitted, whereas the foolish virgins, as it were, are to be excluded? Is it to be based on merit or qualification? Is it intended to "up" the grade level or to lower the grade level? If people of a lower grade have already been accepted, what will happen at a later date?
I come to deal with a glaring case of injustice. There are young men and women who have come into teaching or teacher-training as a deliberate result of the Government having said "We need more teachers". They have come in, have undergone three years' university training, are due to graduate this summer and expect to go to teacher-training colleges. Are they now to be told "We do not need you"? Edinburgh University estimates that 70 people who have undertaken a three-year training course will now, in their last year, be denied their teaching diploma at Moray House College.
I could better understand the cut-back if it were part of a carefully planned process, but that is obviously not the case. The decision appears to have been taken at the last moment. Let me give an example which I find hard to take. I was told by a careers adviser at Edinburgh University as recently as 3rd December 1975 that when SED spokesmen were asked "What are your plans", if any, for cutting back on intake for teacher-training colleges?", the answer was "We have no such plans". That was as recently as five months ago. I have also been told that the principals of various colleges also had no idea that a reduction was to take place. Therefore, it appears that this decision is being imposed at this late date.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that mature students now engaged in training are also experiencing problems, in that they now see their whole future career being taken away from them?

Mr. Mackintosh: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Mature students face particular problems, as do those who have been taken on as a result of special recruitment schemes.
There are further objections to the way in which this matter is being pursued. I am dubious about the morality of the matter. The choice of career must be left to the individual. If the individual has been given assurances as to his future career, it is dubious practice when he or she is now told by the Government "We shall train only those people for whom we can find jobs."
We have only to remember what happened when as a result of the Willink proposals intakes into medical schools were cut. That was a deliberate piece of planning. That decision has caused the NHS to suffer, as we have seen. However, the authorities forgot to calculate the amount of emigration. Therefore, this arbitrary figure of 7½ cent. wastage may be thrown out if there is an error of ½per cent. in the calculations.
Another aspect of the situation relates to the assumption of constant staff-pupil standards. I hope that we shall not allow restrictions of capital and public expenditure to lead us to take the view that we shall never improve in the foreseeable future the staff ratio in our schools.
I do not want to appear to be unconstructive in my remarks. Therefore, I should like to make one or two positive suggestions to the Minister. I suggest that this has been a piece of bad planning and that a Draconian decision has been taken, without adequate consultation. The decision has caused much consternation and in one or two cases particular unfairness to individuals. Therefore, will the Minister delay the cuts until 1977–78 and, before that date, apply the cuts to that intake rather than to people who are now half or three-quarters of the way through their training?
Secondly, he should establish proper criteria for selection of those students who are to be admitted. Thirdly, there should be a proper procedure for the whole matter and things should not be cooked up within a few months.
Finally, the special obligations to university students, mature students and those in the special recruitment scheme should be observed. All of this would


do a great deal to reassure the teaching profession. I hope that my hon. Friend, on whose basic good will in this matter I rely, will look at this carefully and withdraw the requirement tonight.

1.6 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Frank McElhone): The subject which my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) has raised is vitally import- ant and I am grateful for the opportunity to clarify a number of issues which he and others have raised.
First let me make it clear that the proposals with which we are at present concerned are about intake to teacher-training courses in 1976–77. Intake to the colleges of education in 1977–78 and beyond is at present under review and will be the subject of separate consultations later this year. I do not deny that there has been some criticism of our decision to tackle the problem in two stages. But it is important to take decisions on next session's intake as soon as possible, and that would not have been possible if we had postponed our consultations until our proposals for the longer term were formulated.
Secondly, there has been much talk of closing colleges of education and making college lecturers redundant. I want to emphasise that no decisions have yet been taken for next year. Some reorganisation of the teacher-training system may be necessary as a result of the decline in teacher demand but it is too early to talk of closures and redundancies. The colleges of education provide not only pre- service training of teachers but also in-service training and in some cases training in other fields such as youth and community work. It is conceivable that they may diversify their activities further in the future. Until all these aspects of the situation have been explored in the second stage of our review it is not possible to foresee the likely size and shape of the college system or how individual colleges and members of staff may be affected. I will not conceal from the House that there will be some difficult decisions to be taken by my right hon. Friend.
There has been a good deal of criticism of the timing of our proposals. My hon. Friend has certainly made that point. We have, of course, been conscious for

some years of the drop in the birth rate. I can give many figures. Between 1975–76 and the end of the decade, 100,000 fewer primary pupils should be in our schools. Since 1972 we have set overall objectives for intake to primary diploma courses and have recognised that there has been a drop in the birth rate since 1964. But no one would have gained much support during these years for a proposal to cut intake to teacher-training when shortages—some of them serious—still persisted in many schools.
By the autumn of 1975, however, it was evident that the fall in pupil numbers, the significant improvement in teacher supply, and the need to contain public expenditure were combining—to an extent that could not have been foreseen—to make a radical review of teacher supply and training necessary. The factors involved were many and complex, and the work of analysing them and formulating proposals inevitably took some time.
The inescapable conclusion was that intake to the colleges would have to be reduced next session—particularly in the primary sector—if we were to avoid producing many more teachers than authorities would be able to employ in the years ahead. We knew that such a proposal would not be popular, but we were equally certain that if reductions were not applied this year they would have to be all the greater next year. It would have been no kindness to colleges, staff or students to postpone decisions and so subject them to a further period of uncertainty.
Our method of consultation on the proposals has also been attacked. It is true that we first discussed the situation with the principals of the colleges of education. But the principals have been consulted annually about college intake for a number of years; and they have expertise and knowledge which we wished to bring to bear on our proposals before putting them out for wider consultation. As hon. Members know, we have since sought and received comments from a very wide range of interests. As I said in Committee on the Education (Scotland) Bill, about 40 organisations have submitted observations on the intake proposals for next year.

Mr. Mackintosh: My hon. Friend says that he has consulted the principals of


colleges of education. Did they agree with his proposals?

Mr. McElhone: They broadly agree with our proposals. With the birth rate dropping dramatically, people realise that the intake must be cut or many teachers will be unemployed. Nevertheless, 40 organisations have submitted their views. I saw Mr. Maxton of ALCES myself and a delegation came to see me in Dover House. We have tried to see that the bodies representing staff are kept informed at all times.
Some bodies think that they should have been consulted earlier, but there would have been little point in seeking views before our proposals were properly formulated. I am satisfied that our programme of consultation has given everyone ample opportunity to comment fully and constructively, and my right hon. Friend will have regard to all the views that he has received before reaching final decisions.

Mrs. Margaret Bain: Does that mean that the Scottish Office decided to set a higher figure in terms of the cutback than they originally intended to implement and that they will now say that they are climbing down because of consultation, when in fact they will be sticking to a target they set before?

Mr. McElhone: The hon. Lady is tempting me to comment on a decision that my right hon. Friend has yet to make. But once he has considered all the views,

the final decision on college intake for 1976–77 will be taken quickly, and longer-term proposals will be circulated as soon as possible. There is a two-stage review—one for this year and the other for the years up to 1980.
I understand the concern expressed by my hon. Friend, with his long record of educational work. The Government have allocated rate support grant for 800 extra teachers for Strathclyde next session, which I hope will see the end of part-time education in Strathclyde and Glasgow for the first time in 30 years. We have the best pupil-teacher ratio we have ever had in Scotland, and the Red Book agreement and Circular 819 will help to implement those high standards. We have a teaching contract which many teachers in England would be glad to have.
I know that my hon. Friend is worried about staff ratios not being improved for the rest of this decade. My right hon. Friend and his predecessor fought to ensure that, within the restraints of the White Paper on Public Expenditure, these staffing ratios and the figures for education are maintained. We should always aspire to better standards in education and better staffing ratios, and allowing for the present difficult financial situation, my right hon. Friend is actively considering all the proposals. My hon. Friend's views will also be considered when he makes his final determinations.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes past One o'clock.